r

fllONrVERT PCJBLICATlONS

SELEUCID AND PTOLEMAIC REFORMEDARMIES 168-145 BC. VOLUME 2:

THE PTOLEMAIC ARMY

Nick SekundaColour plates by

Angus McBride

SELEUCID AND PTOLEMAIC REFORMEDARMIES 168-145 BC

VOLUME 2: THE PTOLEMAIC ARMYUNDER PTOLEMY VI PlllLOMETOR

Nick Sekunda

Colour Platesby

Angus McBride

Line Drawings by

EdOrg

Published by Montvert Publications

Published in 1995 by Montvert Publications

CCopyright 1995 Montvert Publications

All rights reserYed. No pan of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any meanselectronic or mechanical induding photocopying,recording or any infonnation storage and retrieval systemwithout the prior written consent of the publishcrs.

Montvcrt Publications, 2 Kingswood Grove, Reddish.Stockport SK3 6SP

Montvert Publications (Distribution), PO Box 25,Stockport SK3 6RU

ISBN I 874101 03 5

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available fromthe British Library.

A note to the reader: This is one ofa series of Montverttitles which aim to present some of the best up to daleanalyses ofthe history, dress, equipment and organizationof various ancient and medieval armies.

lypeset by Legend DTPStockport, Cheshire

Printed by Joseph Ward Colourprint Lld.Dewsbwy, Yorkshire

AUTBOR'S DEDICATION,

To my wonderful Mum.

PREFACE.

The history ofthe Hellenistic kingdoms during the periodunder examination is oomplicated. The ancient historicalnarratives which oore dealt with this period are preservedonly in fragments, and thepublicationofnew inscriptionsor papyri requires a process of oonstant revision of thechronological framework. Limited space permits only acondensed ac:c:ount of rapidly<hanging events in thisbook. I have, nevertheless, attempted to make myhistorical sections as up-to-date with current scholarshipas possible. Conscious as I am of my own literaryshortcomings, I have not hesitated to incorporate someof the better-turned phrases penned by Mahaffy, Bevan,and Tarn, which articulatc my sentiments 50 much betterthan I could ever hope to. I have attributed the lengthiersections, but the discerning reader may detect many otherpatches of prose bcneath which, consciously orsubconsciously, lies the hand of one ofthese old masters.

As with Volume I, Andy CaIlan has helped me greatlythroughout the text Finally, I should like to thank theseries editor, Phil Greenough, for making this a betterbook than it might have been.

FORMAT AND LABELLINGVolume 2's chapten follow sequentially from VolumeI, hence the fint cbapter in this volume is Cbapter 6.The main body black & white figure. followsequentiallyfrom Volume I, so the fint is Fig. 65. Theonly exception applies to tbe supporting photos in theappendices.The colour plates follow sequentially from Volume .,so the first is Plate 9. The exception to this is thecentral double-page-spread colour plate which basdeliberately been left unnumbered.There are no colour photos (as opposed to plates orpaintings) in Volume 1, so the fint iD this volume isColour Photo 1.There are two appendices. one OD Hermopolis materialand one on Sidon material, which have been labelledas Appendix B and Appendix S respectively u taidememoires'. These have heeD positioned in front of,and as a lead in to, the bulk of the pictorial part ofthis volume aDd, if desired, can be read almostindependently of the historical sections.The pages are labelled conventionally and do notfollow sequentially from Volume 1.

CHAPTER 6MllJTARY REFORM IN THEPTOLEMAIC ARMY.

In Egypt the triple monarchy of Philometor. Cleopatraand Euergetes had not lasted long. An embassy was, ofcourse, immediately despatched to Rome to offer thanks,under the command of onc of the 'Friends', oneNomenios. The dual reign ofPhiJometor and Euergeteslasted five years, against a background of Egyptiannationalist discontent, the intrigue of eunuchs and ex­slaves at Court, and family strife.

The Native Revolts.

As has already been mentioned. we are told (Diod. 30.14)that at the Battle afMouRt Casios Antiochus Epiphaneshad taken great pains to spare the lives of'the Egyptians'.and that this act of generosity contributed greatly to hisseizure ofPclusiwn and the subsequent conquest ofEgyplAlthough it is possible that Diodems is calling the Greekmilitary settlers in Egypt, who had presumably beenmobilized for the campaign, 'Egyptians'. it would bemore straightforward to interpret his words as referringto the native Egyptian soldiery, themachimoi, who wouldalso have been mobilized for the campaign. If this iscorrect. and it is true that Antiochus won great supportin Egypt for this act of mercy, it may be that this is atleast one factor lying behind the Egyptian nationalistactivity of the next decade or mort.

Soon after Antiochus' withdrawal one of the 'Friends'ofPhilometor, an Egyptian named Dionysios Petosarapis('Gift of Sarapis') attempted to seize the throne (Diod.31.15 a). We are told that Petosarapis was pre~minent

ofall the native Egyptians on the battlefield, and wc mayperhaps assume from these words that he hadcommanded the Egyptian machimoi at the Battle ofMount Casios. He pretended that Philometor had urgedhim to kill Euergetes, and appealed to the Alexandrianmob assembled in the stadium, for justice. The mob,whi~ped into a fury, threatened to kill Philometor. butthe two brothers appeared together in amity before thecrowds and managed to keep their joint throne as wellas thei;lives. Petosarapis withdrew to Eleusis, appealingto the discontented soldiery of the Alexandrian garrisonto throw their lot in with him, and managed to assemblea force numbering some 4,000 men there. He was,however, defeated in battle, and was forced to swim nakedacross the Nile to the open COWltry beyond. Many nativesjoined this charismatic man of action, and soon largearea ofEgypt ""'ere thrown inlo revolt.

By about 165 the revolt had spread to the ThebaId inUpper Egypt. It seems that Philometor moved againstthe rebels peoona1ly (Died. 31.17 bj, thougll still agedonly 19 or so, and soon regained control of that remoteprovince, all except for the city of Panopolis. standinghigh and inaccessible on an ancient mound, where themost active of the rebels had gathered. Judging that afrontal assault was out of the question, both on ac:oxmtofthe strength ofthe position and the ua.l ofits dd'enders,Philometor senled down to a siege, which proved to beboth lengthy and arduous. Eventually the city fell andthe ringleaders were punished, following which Ptolemyreturned to Alexandria.

The invasion of Antiochus, the dynastic strife and thenative disturbances had led to considerable economicdislocation in the countly. Many fled from the troubledsouth to the north. Large numbers of native Egyptianshadbecn killedorwerestill in hiding. there was ascarcityof labour throughout Egypt, the land lay untilled andfamine threatened. The government tried to ensure thateveryone should participate in the cultivation of theabandoned land, and the royal officials. naturally, ""'ereover·zealous in their orders. The native machimoipetitioned the king, and he was forced to ease theordinances. The revolt officially ended in 164, it seems,but Philometor was forced 10 proclaim a general amnestyin 163 in order to pacify the countly. Even so, bandiUywas widespread throughout the 150$, and the countlytook many years to settle down again (M.Rostovtzefl',The Social and Economic Hislory of rhe Hellenistic",0,1d' 1/(1953) pp. 718-724).

The Dispute between Philometor and Euergeles.

Whilst Philometor had been away with the army,Euergetes had been intriguing with the mob ofAlexandria, at that time "avery mongrel city" (Mahaffeyp. 239). In 164 Philometor was forced to flee Alexandria,and went to Rome to petition for his kingdom back. AtRome Philometor was met by his first cousin, the exiledSeleucid prince Demetrius, who greeted him with royalpomp. Philometor avoided this acclaim, however, as hewished to use his apparent poverty to arouse the sympathyof the Senate. He asked Demetrius to leave him be, andbid his companion An::hias and the others who badaccompanied him to stay with the Seleucid prince. Hehimselffound lodgings with an Alexandrian landscape­painter ("ro7lO')'~ 'klerius Maximus 5.1 calls him apie/or AJexondrinus) called Demetrius, living frugallyin the upstairs attic. This crumb of information is of

3

considerable interest for two reasons. It first demonstratesthe high level ofcullure of the young king, for he wouldhardly have chosen Demetrius to lodge with ifhe hadn'tknown the painter, and there is no perticular reason whya king should know a painterifhe were not interested inart. Diodorus (31.18.2) in fact lells us that Philometorhad frequently entertained Demetrius when he wasresident in Alexandria. The passage is also important ininforming us of the fact that an Alexandrian landscapepainter was active in Rome in the 16Os. It was throughDemetrius, and the others who cameafter, that knowledgeof Alexandrian art was transferred to Italy, and copies ofAlexandrian originals come to be preserved in thefrescoes ofPompeii (see Figures 2 and 3).

Following this imaginitive display ofamateur dramatics,the Senate, their sympathies engaged by the plight ofPhilometor, divided the Ptolemaic state into two,assigning Cyprus and Egypt to Philometor, and Cyrenaicato Euergetes, upon which Philometor sailed to Cyprus.Meanwhile in Alexandria the regime of Euergetes wasbecoming increasingly unpopular on account of itscruelly. The reign of terror in the capital was presidedoverby one Timotheus, who even subjecled AskJepiades,the administrator of the city, to torture. The city mobeventually rose against Euergetes. Timotheus wasassassinated, and by May 163 Philometor again ruled inAlexandria.

Euergetes travelled to Rome 10 appeal against the tennsof the partition, and begged the Senate to assign Cyprusto him. Despile the efforts of Menyllus of Alabanda,Philometor's envoy in Rome, the Senale agreed toEuergetes' request, and assigned Titus Torquatus andGnaeus Merula 10 accomplish his installation on theisland peacefully. Euergetes landed in Greece, collecteda force of mercenaries, and then sailed to the RhodianPeraia and then to Side en route for Cyprus. At Side theRoman legates persuaded Euergetes to dismiss hismercenaries, as their instructions were that his returnwas to be achieved without war. Euergetes agreed to meetthe Roman legates on the border of Cyrene, while theythemselves would go to Alexandria in order to inducePhilometor to submit to the Senate's request. Euergetessailed for Crete, along with his mercenary officerDamasippos the Macedonian, where he raised a personalguard ofa thousand Cretan mercenaries. and then landedat Apis on the African coast. It was by now the summerof 162.

The Roman legates, however, did not arrive, with orwithout Philometor, for the lalter detained them in

4

Alexandria against their will. Even worse news reachedEuergetes from Cyrene, for the city ofCyrene bad revoltedagainst him, his governor Ptolemy Sympetesis, anEgyptian, had gone over to the rebels, and it seemed thatthe other cities were on the verge ofjoining in the revolttoo. TIv: Cyreneans took the field and Euergeies marchedon the city, only to find an advanced guard ofCyrenaeansand Libyans occupying the passes leading into Cyrenaica.He divided his forces into two, embarked one balf andordered them to sail round the pass and take the enemyin the rear, while he himself successfully attacked thepass frontalJy. After six days march. the ships sailingalongside him under the conunand of MochIynus. hemet the Cyrenaican army, consisting of 8,000 foot and500 cavalry, and was eventually defeated. in battle.Nevertheless, Euergetes somehow managed to return toCyrene, perhaps through the intervention oftbe Romanlegates.

Both Ptolemies sent embassies to Rome to plead theircause, Euergetes' being led by Komanos and his brother,and Philometor's once again by Menyllus of AJabanda.The Roman legales Torquatus and Merola supportedEuergetes, and the senate declared that the envoys ofPhilometor must leave Italy within five days, and thatRome's alliance with Philometor was at an end..lt seems,however, that Rome took no concrete steps to implementtheir allocation of Cyprus to Euergetes. Philometorrefused to bow to Rome's empty threats, and retainedcontrol ofboth Egypt and Cyprus for the rest of his reign.

Military Reform in the Ptolemaie Army.

We now come across evidence for reform in the PtolemaicArmy. The earliest reference 10 the new 'Romanized'military structures is dated 163 BC, which provides uswith a terminus ante quem for the refonns, but it is notpossible, given our current state of knowledge, to guessat a more precise date within the turbulent tableau ofEgyptian history of the earlier 160s when the changemay have taken place. Research into the militarystructures of the Ptolemaic state is somewhat hamperedby the complex nature of the evidence. The Ptolemaicarmy was essentially divided into two components, thestanding army and the c1eruch army. The standing armycomprised the regiments of guards which protected theperson of the king and the court, and the regiments ofmercenaries stationed in garrisons throughout theEmpire.

The cleruchic army was a 'territorial' anny. From thereign of Ptolemy I Soter onwards, and especially from

the reign of Ptolemy 11 Philadelphos, ex-soldiers wereallotted plots (kl2l'Oi - hence the appellation kMl'Ouehoigiven to the settlen;), in return for the liability to perfonnmilitary service in time of war, ifcalled upon (Crawford,Kerkeosiris pp. 55-85). An individual c1eruch held aparticular rank, and belonged to a particular regimentin this territorial army, and upon mobilization a fullyfonned army should, in theory, have constituted itself.At first, for example during the Third Syrian War, thesystem seems to have worked reasonably well, but by theend ofthe third century the system was already beginningto malfunction. As well as their rank and regiment,individual cleruchs have all sorts of other titles in thepapyri, which are, as yet, not understood with anycertainty. Consequently, it is difficult to be certain howmuch military practices in the standing army and in thec1eruc:hic: army would have been identical. It is probable,however, that the two forces were identical in theirregimental structures and ranks. From papyrologicalmaterial which is in the main relevant to the c1eruchicarmy, the following rough outline can be given for theorganization of the Ptolemaic army during the thirdcentury. The military ranks held by individuals appearingin the Ptolemaic papyri have been collated in the workPl'Osopogrophio Pto/emoteo. In the text below I havegiven the numbers as they appear in this work in bracketsafter each rank.

The Ptolemaic Army During the Third Century.

As with all the early Hellenistic annies, the Ptolemaicarmy largely followed the organizational structures ofthe Macedonian army as they stood at the end of thereign of Alexander the Great. The cavalry underAlexander was organized into hipparchies and'squadrons',or itai. Each hipparchyhad at least two itoi,and each fie numbered at least 250. The Ptolemaic cavalrywas also divided inlo numbered hipparchics, and theninto itoi..Ten hipparchies are attested as things stand atthe moment, minus numbers six and nine (Van t'Dack,Ptolemoica Seteeta p. 53). A cavalry tochos may alsohave existed, and a dekania commanded by a dekanikos(Lesquier pp. 90-1). The cavalry was, it seems, largelyunaffected by the military reforms carried out during thereign of Philometor, for the cavalry continued to beorganized into hipparchies and ;Ioi, though the rank ofdekanikos is not attested after 165.

Chi/iarehoi 'commanders of a thousand', andpentekosiarcho; 'commanders of five hundred' are bothattested in the infantry of the later army of Alexander(Arr., Anab. 7.25.6; Plut., Vit Aler. 76.6). They were

presumably in command of infantry units withestablishment strengths, based on a file of 16 men. of1,024 and 512 men respectively. The third-<:entwyPtolemaic papyri also mentionofficers who hold the ranksof chi/iarehos (Pros. Plol. 2290-2301) andpenlalwsiarchO$ (Pros. Ptoi. 2302-2320). and so we maysafely conclude that the regimental structure ofAlexander's army continued in the Ptolemaic armythroughout the third century. We also hear of taxtarchoi'commanders of companies' (Pros. Pto/. 2288-9), whomay have commanded an infantry sub-unit lower downin the organizational hierarchy.

When the de!amikos, or 'commander often', appears inthe papyri (Pros. Ptot. 2273-2287) with furtherinformation as to what unit he belongs to, he is frequentlyfound to be serving in the cavalry. In many cases.however, the ann of service is not known, and thedekanikos was probably an infantry rank too (Lesquierp. 92). Aswell as the delcanikoi, we also hearofdimoiritai'double-pay men' (Pros. Ptot. 3878, 3921 and 3994).These two ranks closely parallel those in use in theinfantry file of sixteen men in the Macedonian annyunder Alexander. The organization of the file underAlexander is given in Arrian, Anab. 7.23.3-4. Fortraditional reasons the file is called a dekos, or 'ten',even though it numbered sixteen men. Preswnably theMacedonian file had once numbered ten men in thedistant past, but, when the number of the file wasexpanded to sixteen men in line with current Greekmilitary practice, the old title ofdekaswas retained. Thecommander of the dew was called a dekadarchos, andthe dekas also bad a dimofritb and twodekastatll'Oi 'ten­stater men'. The context of Arrian's discussion is bowthe dekas was reorganized to accomodate native Persians,but it is reasonable to suppose that the dekadorchos andthe dimoirites stood at the front of the two half-files ofeight men, and the two dekastateroi stood at the back ofeither half-file. Whilst the dekastoterot are unattested inthe papyri the dimoiritoi are. The dekanikos is simplyan alternative title for the dekadarchos. The Ptolemaicfile was presumably called a dekania.

The last reference to any soldier holding the rank ofdekanikos comes in a manumission document fromKrokodilopolis in the Arsinoite Nome dating to 165 BC.It mentions one Adrastos son of Adrastos, a native oftheEuboean city ofHestiaia, and so presumably a mercenarysoldier, dekanikos oftbe 'Regiment formerly commandedby Noumenios' (Pl'Os. Ptol. 2273). The commander ofthis regiment has been identified with Noumenios sonof HerakIeiodoros of Alexandria, the same Noumenios

5

who had been sent on embassy to Rome late in 168. Heis known to have served earlier as srrattgos of theThebaId, but was summoned to Alexandria late in 170,probably in preparation for the war. Nownenios left themilitary service (W. Peremans & E. Van't Dack,Prosopographica (1953) p. 50 n. 6) late in 168 to presideover the embassy to Rome, and he eventually rose to therank of epistoJagraphos, or head of chancellery underPtolemy vm Euergetes 1I (Walbank, Commentary JJlpp. 439, 453). It is extremely interesting to note that theregiment formerly commanded by Nownenios remainedwithout an officially appointed successor to theeponymouscommand for ar least two years. Unfortunatelywe do not know whether this regiment was one ofcavalryor infantry, and therefore we cannot take the date of 165as a terminus post quem for the military refonns.

KaJlikJes son of Kallikles the Alexandrian.

Despite Euergetes' short-lived seizure of power in theyears 164-3, it is hardly to be doubted that theadministration of PhiJometor instituted these militaryrefonns. What part, we may ask, did Philometor play ona personal level in the process? Polybius (39.7) thoughtthat Philometor was a gentle and good king. He neverput to death any of his friends nor any of tlteAlexandrians. In fact this was perhaps a mistake: he wascertainly too lenient with his brother. We do know thatin Rome Philometor found an ardent supporter in Catothe Censor, who spoke against Thermus on his behalf(cf. AJan E. Astin, Cato the Censor (1978) p. 270). Catomay have met Philometorduring the king's visit to Romein 164, and may have been impressed by the youngmonarch's character.

Polybius also tells us that despite his sensitive nature,Philometor sOO\\"OO courage and presence ofmind in bothpolitical crises and on the battlefield. He was extremelypopular with his troops; a decree set up by his Cretanauxiliaries at Delos calls him "scrupulous, pious and ofall men the most humane .... showing a great spirit in allhis dealings" (Walbank, Commentary JII p. 738).Nevertheless, in view of the age and lack of experienceof Philometor, even though he had personally visitedRome in 164 when aged about 20, it is hard to believethat Philometor himself instituted the 'Roman' reformofthe Ptolemaic army. Fortunately there is some evidenceto hand giving us the name of the person who may havebeen responsible for implementing these changes.

Kallikles son of KallikJes of Alexandria is only attestedin a couple of honorific inscriptions from Cyprus which

6

give us a list of his military titles. He held the post ofarchisomatophylax or 'head bodyguard', which ifconverted into modem parlance might be uanslated asthe equivalent of 'senior staffofficer'. He is also namedas a squadron commander (iJarchls) in the palace cavalry.The other two military titles he holds arc quiteextraordinary. He is called 'instructor in tactics of theKing' (S\&xoxaAol; 'tOO~ 't(OV WoICT\KCIlV). Inthis context, ofcourse, tactics means the art. ofdrawingup an army, and it is presumably the art. of drawing upthe army in the Roman manner with which Kallikleswas charged. The precise natureofhis activities in Cyprusis unknown (Leon MooreD, The AuJic ntuJatul'e InPtolemaic Egypt (1975) p. 21), but he may well havevisited the island to reform the infantry regiments of thegarrison there. The final title Kallikles is given iscommander 'of the troops ofthe left'. It should be notedthat the reading is not entirely secure at this point Mitford(BSA 56 (1961) pp. 20-22) conjectured that these wouldhave been troops of 'the left wing' (eOO)vo~v KepaQ,which he thought might havebeen"some fancy fonnation.. devised by this Instructor Royal in the Art ofTactics".I suspect rather that the 'right wing' may refer to one ofthe two 'wings' into which the phalanx. was divided alongthe 'Asclepiodotan' model, for which, as we have seen,there is some evidence in the Seleucid army. Kallikles,then, may have been one of the two principal infantrycommanders in the army of Philometor, and the post ofsquadron commander in the palace cavalry may havcbeen a purely honorific one.

KalJikles is not otherwise known, and we have noknowledge ofwhere he may have acquired his knowledgeof Italian military systems. He may have visited Romepersonally as an ambassador, and it is even possible,though unlikely, that he may have served as a mercenaryofficer in the western Mediterranean. It is perhaps morelikely, though, that he obtained the information herequired to implement the reforms by interrogating theconsiderable number of Italian mercenaries who wouldhave been serving in the Ptolemaic army at the time.The first Egyptian embassy was sent to Rome in 273,and Italians are fOWld in Ptolemaic service from themiddle of the third century onwards (Launey I. pp. 604·8). The earliest attested ofthese is one Dinnius. a Ro.man,a dimoiritts in the regiment commanded by Automedonin 252/1 BC. Some of these Romans could reach quitehigh rank. Lucius, son of Gaios, was commander oftbePtolemaic garrison stationed at Itanos in Crete duringthe reign of Philopator (217-209 BC).

The Ptolemalc Manlple.

The new organizational structure is the slmeia, or'maniple'. The Greek word used for maniple. a'standard', presumably on account of there being onestandard-bearerto each maniple, is generally speltslmeiain Ptolemaiccontexts, whereas the word is generally speltsemaia in Polybius. The ptolemaic maniple is firstattested in a papyrus which mentions Philippos son ofSogenes, a private soldier (straridles) in the semeia ofPu[..]r6s stationed in Memphis (UPZ 18,S) in 163 BC.The official terminology for a private soldier during thisperiod, the terminological equivalent of the Latingregarlus, was therefore presumably stralJ6res, the tennidiores does, however, also occur in military contexts(Pros. Ptol. 3813,3920). A alternative reading of thesame papyrus has been suggested which would makePhilippos a private soldier in the sixth maniple ofPu[..]rOs (ZPE 52 (1983) p. 271). This seems preferable,as the maniples were normally referred to by theirnumber, and the personal name given is that of theregimental officer in charge of a number of maniples.For example we find one 'Ptollis standard-bearer of thesecond semela' (PP 2388). Apart from dubious readingsor interpretations of an 'eleventh' and a 'twenty-first'maniple in the papyri, the highest number attested forany maniple in the papyri or inscriptions is six (ZPE 52(l983) p. 270). It seems reasonable to suppose that therewere normally six slmeiai in the regiment; a speculationwhich is confirmed by the }ouget and Roeder stelaidiscussed in Appendix H. In battle they would presumablyfonn up in a triplex acies 'chequerboard' fonnation t"..Omaniples wide and three deep.

The system of numeration by maniple was not appliedin an entirely regular manner, however, for a group ofpapyri dating to between 158 and 156 BC referindiscriminately to the same unit, stationed in Memphis,to which an ouragos named Argaios belonged, as thesemeia of Dexilaos or the first semela (Van t'Dack,Pto/emaieaSeleeta p. 72 n. 34). Van t'Dack (PtolemajeaSe/eela pp. 65-84) has suggested that the demotic tennstn is the Egyptian tenn for the Greek slmeia. The tennstn is certainly used as an equivalent to slmeio in thoseexamples given by van t'Oack which have a dale afterthe introduction of the semeia in the 16Os, but a numberof other examples use the tenn srn before this date(sometimes of cavalry units). Therefore it should beassumed that the tenn is used with the meaning 'militarycompany' and is used of semeia after the 1605, but isearlier used of taxis or of some similar term(s) for aninfantry sub-unit.

The Ptolemaic Century.

The semeia was divided into two centuries, presumablycalled hekatontarchial, commanded by hekatontarchoi'commanders of a hundred'. All hekatontarths attested.in the papyri (PP 2321-2287) have dates in the secondhalf of the second centwy. The earliest, one Noumenios(pP 2326), is attested in a papyrus ofabout ISO BC fromTebtunis in the Fayoum. After his name comes thepaleographic sign rho (P), which stands for the numberlOO in the Greek alphabetic system of numeration. Itwas pointed out by WLlcken (UPZ 2 p. S6) that this signstands for centurion in documents of the Roman period,and that this is how it must be interpreted in thisdocwnent. despite the early date. An undated papyus fromTebtunis, which must. however, date to around the 1605(see the paragraph below), mentions a soldier "from thetroops commanded by Polycrates, of the 8th. century ofthe Macedonian Agema" (SB I 4318, 2). Ifthis documentis correctly read, it is a unique example of numerationby centuries rather than maniples. Perhaps thephenomenon of numbering by centuries was confined toguard units.

Under the centurion were two penlekontarehoi'commanders of fifty', in charge of a unit which waspresumably called a pentekontarchia. ProsopographlaPtolemaica lists a large number of holders of this rank(2333-2366) dating to both before and after the 1605. If:,however, all the examples earlier than the 160s areexamined, it is found that they are all included becausethey have the Greek letters pen- after their name in theoriginal document, indicating their rank. The earlyeditors of these papyri restored pen- as pen[takosicudlos]'commander of five hundred', or pen[tekontarchos]'commander of fifty' at will. When all examples ofrestorations of the letters pen- are removed from thelisting of pcntekontarchs in Pros. Ptol., it is found thatall belong to the middle of the second century or later. Itis evident that the letters pen- should be restored. aspen[takosiarchos] in all cases. When the rank of thepentekontarch is given by a paleographic symbol, as withthe hekatontarch, the alphabetic Greek number for 50 isgiven, in this case the letter nu (v). The earliest example(Pros. Pto/. 2362) is a pentek:ontareh ofthe troops underPolykrates, a regiment which has just been mentionedin lhe paragraph above, who is attested in a documentfrom Tebtunis in the Fayoum dating to 162 BC. Nosubordinate officers are attested below pente.kontareh.but it is possible that the penukontarchia was dividedinto a number of tent-parties.

7

Manipular Staff.

The Latin term for the 'staff' of the maniple waspl'incipales, a term which distinguished them from thegregal'ii, or private soldiers. As we have seen the'Asclepiodotan' term for these officers, which mayrepresent late Seleucid practice, was ek/aktoi. InPtolemaic usage the term used for these 'staff' was hoiem tare~n (o~e.;CJ.)'t~v)or .. thoseoutside the ranks".Current explanations of this and related terms are notentirely satisfactory (Van t'Dack, Ptolemaica &lec/a pp.65--84), and they can only be understood in the contextof the 'Romanization' of the late Ptolemaic army.

The oUl'agos, slmeiophoros, klna and hypire/es are allattested, but not the trumpeter. The Lefebvre Stele fromHermopolis, which is fully discussed in Appendix H,informs us that each of the slmeio has a berald, astandard-bearer, and an oUl'ogos. All the oUl'ogoi listedin the papyri are late, except for (Pros. Ptol. 2369) datingto 248r! BC, which relies on the interpretation of theletters 0\) as signifying Ol.){pa.')'Ol;J. However, a preferableinterpretation of these two letters would simply be toregard them as the Greek negative 01.) 'no' (Fritz Uebel,Die klel'uehen Agyptens unler den erslen seehsPlolemdern (1968) p. 205 n. 4). The earliest of thestandard-bearers (Pros. Plol. 2379-89) is Korax son ofDionysios slmlophoros of those troops. under Pasinos.attested in a papyrus from Hermoupolis Magna datingto 7143n BC (Pros. Ptol. 2385; er. Winnicki p. 13).The military ranks of klrux (Pros. Ptol. 2390-2399) orstratolferur 'army-herald' and hypere/es (Pros. Ptol.2435-1452) both existed before the army reform of the16Os.

Higher Formations,

From information supplied by the Lefebvre stele, whichis fully discussed in Appendix H, we can reconstruct theorganization ofan infantry regiment, which is seeminglycalled a syntaxis in that document. The regiment wascommanded by an officer called a hegemon ep 'ondron,and the regimental headquarters included a clerk(gramma/eus) who was perhaps the eqivalent of the'Regimental Sergeant-Major', two other 'Warrant­Officers' (Mgemoneser~laxe~n) and a 'Staff-Sergeant'(er6 rare6n), who was perhaps properly called thehypere/es.

We have no firm knowledge of any military formationhigher than thesynlaxis. Van t'Dack (Prolemoico &leclap. 55) has noted that a single reference to the word

8

phalanx comes in a papyrus dated to 29th. July 127.which mentions agramma/eus (secretary) "ofthe phalanxover which Polianthes holds command". He has alsonoted that there is a grammatical inconsistency in thedocument, for "which" is in the plural. He notes that inAsclepiodotus (2.10) the 'ideal' army consists of fourphalangarchiai, the equivalent of the legion, groupedinto two diphalangiai or 'wings', and a then singlephalanx, but both Aelian and Arrian (9.10) givetelraphanangarchia as an alternative term for the wholeinfantry force instead ofphalanx. Presumably the reasonfor this was that in common usage the termsphalangarchia and phalanx were interchangeable. Van!'Dack has suggested that the papyrus should perhapsbe read with the number 4 in front ofPhalanx. which isto be understood as shorthand for saying that Polinathescommanded a unit called a 'rerraphalanx'.

Perhaps, notwithstanding the grammar, it might be bestto understand the information in the papyrus as eithersuggesting that the term phalanx could be used as analternative to syntaxis, or that a number of synlareisformed a phalanx. The Ptolemaic phalanx is thus theequivalent of the Asclepiodotan phalangarchia and ofthe Roman legion. If my interpretation of the titulatureofKallikJes son ofKallikJes is colTCC't, a number ofthesephalanxes, officially two, would then constitute one ofthe two 'wings' of the heavy infantry as a whole. Lateron in the same papyrus the term hegemonia is used ofthe unit which is commanded by Polianthes. The termliterally means 'command', and is probably a term whichwas used loosely for a number of levels of command. Itis possible, however, that it was sometimes usedspecifically for the regiment, called a syn/aris in theLefebvre Stele (cf. Van t'Dack, P/olemaico&lec/a p. 55n.21).

Other Reforms of Philometor.

Other refonns in the administration of the Empire mayalso have been carried out during the reign ofPhilometor.but if so we are poorly informed about them.Papyrological evidence from the village of Kerkeosirisin the Fayoum indicates that it was only around 150 BCthat c1eruchic settlement picked up again after an almostcomplete break of thirty years. Crawford (Kerkeosiris p.61) has noted that during the troubled early years ofPhilometor's reign the army would have been oncontinual call for service and the authorities would havebeen too occupied to concern themselves with the peacefulsettlement of troops. Many of the mercenaries firstcontracted for service during the Sixth Syrian War in

the late 1705, and further contingents of mercenariescontracted subsequently during the civil wars of the 160s'would now have been in continuous service for twentyyears or more, and would be eager candidates fordemobilization into the cleruchic reserve if this involvedthe douceur of an allottment.

The native revolts of Upper Egypt during the early partofPhilometor's reign had demonstrated the importanceof consolidating military control over this part of thekingdom. A new office, that of epistrat2gos, or'generalissimo' of the Thebai'd was created during

Philometor's reign (Lesquier p. 76), and completecontrolof the Upper Nile was placed in his hands. Philomctoralso attempted to extend the southern border down theNile. Boethus, son ofNicostratos, a Carian, who is knownto have held the office of episrrat2gos of the Thebaid inthe last year ofPhilometor's reign, was given the task offounding two new towns on the border namedPhilometoris and Cleopatra. Herodes, son ofDemophonheld the post of garrison~mmanderat Syene on theFirst Cataract, and was governor of this border region(Bevan, Egypt p. 294).

Diag. 6. Comparison of Military Terms

Roman Term Polybian Term Asclepiodotan Term Ptolemaic Term

tribune chiliarches (6.19.7) chi/iarcheslegion meros (6.19.7) phalangarchia phalanx?cchort speira (11.23.1) chiliarchia syntaxis?maniple smaia (6.24.8) syntagma semeiacenllJrion taxiarchos (6.24) hekatontarchesltaxiarchos hekatontarchescentury taxis (6.24) taxis hekatontarchia7optio ouragos (6.24.2) ouragos ouragosstandard-bearer semaiaphoros (6.24.6) semeiophoros semeiophoros

pentekontarchia Diag. 7. Probable Organization of a ptolemaic Infantry Regimentpentekontarehes641

hekatontarchiahekatontarches 1st semeia128?

pcntekontarchiapcntekontarches 2nd semeia641 3rd si:meia syntaxis?

256 + 7officers Mgemon ep'andron

+4 staff 1,536? + 43 officers+ 22 staff

t 4th semeia t+ +

pentekontarchia hoi exo taxe6n grammateuspentekontarches k1~----- 5th semeia hegemon ex6 taxe6n641 semeiophoros hegemon ex6 taxe6n

(hypSretes) eX<'! taxeonouragoshekatontarehia "Sons of Officers"hekatontarchcs 6th semeia1281

pentekontarchiapentekontarchh641

9

APPENDIXHTHE HERMOPOLIS STELAI.

The information which is supplied on the late Ptolemaicarmy from the papyri can be supplemented by a numberofinscriptions listing military units, mostly coming fromAshmunein, the ancient cityofHennopolis Magna. whichwere deposited by the local garrison. The earliest ofLhese~n~.riptions is known as 'Hennopolis Slele L' taking theInitial letter of its first publisher Gustave Lefebvre('Inscription Grecque d'Ashmounein' Bulletin de la&eWe roya/e d'ArcMologie d'A/exandrie 10 (1908) pp.187-195).

The lLefebvre' Stele (rom Hermopolis.

The inscription, broken al the top and bouom, lists atI~ some o!the military contingents of the Hennopolisgamson. Dlag. HI shows a simplified version of thelist.

The date aCthe inscription is uncertain, but the referencein I, 60 seems to be 10 persons who have received anamnesty. As has been mentioned above, a papyrus datingto 143 BC, and probably coming from HermopolisMagna, mentions onc Korax, son of Dionysios, astandard-bearer of those under Pasines. This Pasines canpossibly be identified with the eponymous officer who ismentioned as commanding a unit along with onc Drytonin m, 19 (Pros. Plo/' 1972-3). In such case the grant ofamnesty, or phifanthropa, seemingly referred to in theinscription could be thal made by Ptolemy vm Euergetcs11 in 145/4 BC (Marie-ThCrese Lenger. Corpus desOrdonnanees des Plotemees (1964) 41-3) and SO theinscription could, therefore, dale to around 144. If so,however, we would have to assume that the regiment ofCyrenaicans under Andronikos mentioned in col. I, S8had been sent to Hennopolis by Euergetes when he tookthe throne latc in 145, for it is difficult to see howPhilomctor could have recruited in Cyrene, given thehostility of the two brothers. Numerous other grants ofamnesty were made subsequently during the reign ofEuergetes, for example those made during the years 121­118 BC to those who had supported Queen Cleopauaand had sided against him in the civil war (Lenger, op.eft. 53), and the inscription could be subsequent to anyof these in date.

Little can be made ofthe othereponymous officers namedin the inscription. Though Dryton is not a common namethere is no particular reason to think that the 01)10~mentioned in col. m, 19 is the same individual as the

10

Ol)1on mentioned in col. I, 36. From other evidence wecan reconstruct the career of one Dryton son ofPamphilos, who was born around 195 BC in the city ofPtolemais in Upper Egypt (Naphtali Lew:is, Greeks inPlolemaic Egypl (1986) pp. 88-103). This Dryton was,however, a cavalry officer, who was transferred to theeity of Pathyris in Upper Egypt, over a hundred milesaway from Hermopolis in ]53 BC, so any connectionseems most unlikely. There seem to have been at leastthree individual military officers called Ol)1on servingin the Ptolemaic army in the middle ofthe secondcentwy.They are quite possibly related. Lesquier (Rev. Phi! 32(1908) p. 215) thought that theDrytons ofthe inscriptionwereto be identified with the Cretan known from papyri.He also thought that the Komanos mentioned as aneponymous unit conunander in the inscription could beidentified with Komanos ofAlabanda. an individual whois otherwise attested (Pms. Pial. 8559) in a papyrus ofaround 148 BC as a deruch farming more than a hundredaumurai, and so presumably an officer. Komanos is aquite common name in Ptolemaic Egypt however. andthere seems to be no particular reason to associate thisregimental conunander in the regu1arannywith a farmerin the army reserve.

Manipular Strengths and Organization.

Columns IT and III seem to list maniples in series, oneafter another. It would be tempting to suggest that theeponymous officers named there, frequently in pairs, arethe one, two or more officers conunanding the variousmaniples of the regiment. However in colunm llI, 19 sq.after the title 'Under Pasines and Oryton', we wouldexpect the first name to be listed to be that of the principalhekatontarch of the maniple, either Pasines or Dryton,but the first hekatontareh to be listed is, in fact, calledPtolemaios son of Tryphon. We can therefore concludethat all the ePonymous officers mentioned in theinscription, whether appearing singly, in pairs, orwhatever, are regimental commanders.

Our understanding ofthe inscription is hampered by thefact that the stele (and the lists of names it contains) isbroken al the top and at the bottom. However the orderin which the members ofthe maniple are listed is standardand can be reconstructed as in Diag. H2.

Each maniple has a herald (Una, the equivalent of theRoman tesserarius) and a standard-bearer, whoare listedat the top of each maniple as the manipular staff(principafes). Ifwe regard the maniplc as the equivalentofthe modem infantry company, it would be appropriate

COLUMNL

lIila 1-3)(Ihnoc: I\I.IlICII of uneeN.in inlcfprctltion)

(lila4-IIJWitla KonIatu and the ocben.

Ull""- MmocloroIlIIII ofMcnodorw,sbrwtiopltotw. Thood__ of Henk.lcitol,hc:b1OnUl'Ch, Dc:mctri0l1llll of ApolloNOI,(there follows & lisl ora NmcI).

[lila 19-211Witla Al:Ihani.Iphu and Sthmclao.,

,,~)

[1ine12z..23]W"1lh~ and Ihc otben,

(I ANIIC)

[line 24-34)W"1lh AnlwLiaphu and Slhmcboa,

dlMlopJloros, Andremoa II1II ofBa1alclu,pcntekonLlrch, DionysiOl_ of Plolem..io&,(6 1\lIlICI)

[lineI3s-41l)And of tboec formerly witla IJr)1on.

Mtl-.p'"N11'(11f md~ T.mokk._oITllllOkka,Ofru:en ad tau6II. (2 IUmeI),Of'thcw.4U&l,(I Nmc)SoN ofofl'"tun" Dioo),jOl II1II of Dion).....

PanaclQ II1II afDioa)'Sioa,Dioscncs _ ol'Dion)'Sioa,

,rommolau oIthc syntaxiJ, EudOJCOl_ oITunoldca.

(linel SO-H)Witla~

Artcmidoroe I0Il ofAntipatrol.

(lincl S2·SS)From the Thebald,

DemctriOlIOll of AnlipaltOl,MenophilOl,HCTllklciclcf lOll ofLconidu.

[linll* S6·S7JOfthc CrctlIlII witla AriftOUr1Cf ofGort)'ll,

B.I.1croI fOIl ofDion)'liOl.

[li1lCl SS·SIlIOf the CyreNiC'N witla AndronikOl,

Apolloplwlca I0Il of bfOl\.

[Ime. (jO-6l1jOftbOlc who "'vc roccivcd the .ltUlWY.

Archyptretl.l oIlhc mcrcCTllry cot1tingcnl, Sopalrol fOIl ofKuliodonl&,

(fix other IUmea),

(linea 69-72]Of the poIj.1koI(- Cilixenalcivili'lII)

(lhrec 1\lIlICI).

COLUMN 11.

[Ime. I-6S1(13 1IIfIICI)

~ Ho2mippot_ ofLoon,(4_)pc:ntckonl&rch, <iyIhua _ ofNoopeolcmoa,(31111f11C1)~ Leonidet_ ofAfOlIoniot,(6_)OIUago&. P\:rigcnot _ ofAkxilimo$,

[1iDea 63-661Witla DUdesllld. hit -.

..l:lnu. I>topiwdot _ ofJ....

COLUMNUL

(linea 1-18](1l1llfTa)pen1cktlnWeh, W- _ ofMdrodon:.,

(S namca)OOITQ&OI. Apollodorot _ of~

(lineI I9-S7]Witla P"ila and IJr)1on.

..l:lnu. DnkOll II1II of He.....u-iophon:JtI. MikkoI_ ofPlol<=Loio&,hckatontlldl, PIolan.oioa _ ofTryphon,~ Zoilol_ ofZoiIOl,(241WDe1)pcnlckontuch, AclIillC'\llIOll 01 Dion)'liOl,(4IUmea)

<BREAI<>

Diag. HI. Simplified version of the inscriptionon the 'Lefebvrc' SteJe, broken at tbe top andbottom,lisling some oftbe military contingentsof the HermopoliJ garrison.<BREAK> indicates brokenliJltgible sections.

JJ

(Regimental Title)herald,standard.bearer,

centurion.firsl pcntekontarch,soldicn oflhe first pmkkonuuchia oflhefil'it century

second pcntekontarch.soldiers of the second pentekotllarchia ofthe first century.

Secont! cmhlry

? ccnturion.first ptntekontarch.soldicn of the firsl J1DIleJwnlan:hia of thesecond century

second pcntekontarch,soIdicn of the second pmtekontLuchia ofthe second century.

ouragos.

Dlag. H2. ROCOIlStruc1k:ln ofthe orderlnwblcb the membenof the manfpM! ~ listfd on the 'Lefebvre' Stelt.

to regard these two principales as the equivalent of'Staff­Sergeants', and, although their precise military functionsare unknown, it would be reasonable to suppose that one\\'OuI4 be in charge of payor persormel and the other\\'Ould be in charge of the distribution of stores andrations. At any rate they would somehow divide theadministration of the slmeia between them. At the endof each list comes the ouragos or 'fiIe-eloser' of thesemeia. He is to be regarded as the equivalent of theRoman optio. Like the oplio he would stand behind thesemeia during battle so as to ensure no-cne left the ranks,and for this reason. he is listed at the end of the semeia.He is best considered as the equivalent of the modernCompany Sergeant·Major. These staff are, as has beenstated previously. the equivalent of the Asclepiodotaneklakloi, so-called because they were drawn up "outsidethe ranks" ofthe private soldiers (s/ratidtai) and officers(hlgemones) of the semeia. In Ptolemaic terminology,as has been mentioned before, they are known as hoi ex6taxedn (Ol e;m ~&COv), which has exactly the samemeaning as the Asclepiodotan ektakloi. These em laxednwere not considered as officers by the ancient Greeksand Macedonians, but as with the non-commissioned andwarrant officers in a modern anny they lay in betweenthe private soldiers and the officers.

/2

One would expect the slmeio to have two centurioDS,but al col. n, 20 instead ofthe second centurion \VC wooIdexpect, the third pentekontarch appears. It could be thecase that this particular slmeia was missing one of itscenturions. On the other hand it could be argued that ithad become frequent practice to have only one centurionto the semela by the time the inscription was c:arved.. Adossier of papyri has been preserved concerning anEgyptian semeia which took part in the Palestinian warofl03-101 BC (E. \'an t'Dock, W.C1aryssc, G.Cohen, I.Quaegebeur &. J.K. Winnicki, The Judeon-Syrlan­Egyptian Conflicl 0/103-IOJ B.G.. A MuJtlltnguaJDossier Concerning a "War o/Sceptres" (CoffectaneoHefJenistica I, 1989) pp. 37-81). Although thecorrespondence is sometimes addressed to Pates alone,who is presumably the senior hekatontarch oftheslmeia,more usually the correspondence is addressed to Patesand Pachrates the Mgemones of the slmeio. We canassume from this, I believe, that it remained normalprcctice down to thisdate to have theslmela commandedby two hekatontarchs. We also have references in thiscorrespondence to Horos son of Portis the standard­bearer, and to Hores son of Nechoutes, "the man whohas been elected". This second Hores is known to havebeen an older man, probably in his 40s, and so the titlehe is given may be the demotic Egyptian equivalent ofthe Greek oUI'agos. Pentekontarchs are nowherementioned in these documents, as theyare in the LefcbvreStele. There are four pentekontarehs to each slmeia, twoto each hekatonlorchia, and it would be logical toconclude, I think, that these pentekontarchs wereconsidered as officers (hlgemones) rather than ex"taxe6n.

The stcle also, most fortunately, provides us withinfonnation as to the actual strength (the 'parade state')ofsome of these simeiai whilst perfonning garrison dutyin a relatively remote posting, as opposed to theirtheoretical ('establishment') strength. The'establishment' strength ofthe Ptolemaic maniple is notknown, but ifwe compare its organization to that of theAsclcpiodotan hekatOnlarchia oflight-infanuy (Asc1ep.6.3), which was divided into two penlekonatarchiai of64 men each, and which may. indeed. reflect Ptolemaicpractice and terminology at this point rather thanSeleucid, it would be reasonable to assume that thePtolemaic hekalonlachia also had an establishmentstrength of 128. In column Uwe can seepenlekontarchiaiwith actual 'parade states' of 13+ for the firstpentekontarchio ofthe first helwtontarchio and 5 for thesecond. In the second hekalontarchia of the semeia thetwo pentekontarchiai have strengths of 32 and 7. In the

slmeiai listed in column III the one at the top of thecolumn has a second hekatontarchia withpentekontarchiai numbering 10+ and 6, while the secondsemeia has pentekontarchiai of 25 and 5+ in its firsthekatontarchia. These slmeiai had, therefore, fallen ",-ellbelow their establishment strengths of 256 due totransfers, death and disease, and discharge upontennination of contract. Under these circumstances thepractice seems to have been to maintain the firstpentekontarchia ofeach hekatontarchia at approximatelyhalf its establishment strength, so as to preserve itsoperational capacity, but to allow the second to fall tocadre strength.

The Regimental Head-Quarters.

Although the items in the first colwnn are very mixed,including individuals not belonging to the military (cC.Launey p. 41 n. 7 on the po/itikol), and odd individualsfrom a variety of military units who happen to be presentat the fort at Hennopolis Magna for various reasons. someinteresting conclusions can be drawn from lines 35-49,which would seem to list the HQ element of 'Thoseformerly with Dryton'. Eudoxos son ofTimokles is giventhe title grammateus of the .syntaxis, therefore \\"C canassume that the correct expanded title of the unit inquestion is 'The Syntaxis fonnerly with Dryton'. Thetenn syntaxis is rare, but perhaps occurs elsewhere. Forexample, a paymaster of a '{-]taxis of the infantry'occuring in a damaged papyrus could be restored to read{syn]taxis, though a number of other restorations arepossible. and the date of the papyrus is 174 BC, which isprobably too early for the refonn (P. GrenJ I 10, 8 (­]~ 1t£l;CilV 'tClK'tOIUo6ol;;; cf. Lesquier p. 92).

The title given to the commander of this syntaxis ishlgem~n ep 'andr~n. The precise meaning of this termis obscure and much debated. It could be argued that thetenn was restricted to regimental commanders. My guesswould be, however, that it is used simply to conlrast'commissioned' officers, who commanded thesubordinate officers, the hekatontarchs andpentekontarehs, and the men (strati~tai) of the semeia,with the hegemones ex~ taxe~n (see below) whocommanded the ex6 taxe6n of the semeia. Theheka10ntarchs would report to the regimental commanderto receive their orders. I don't know if the three 'sons ofofficers' were really attached to the regimentalheadquarters in a military sense, that is if they were'officer cadets', or if they are simply listed at this pointfor the sake of convenience.

A number of explanations for the tenn hegemones exiJtaxe6n have been advanced before (cf. Van I'Dack.Ptoemaica Se/ecta pp. 70-71), but all of themunconvincing. The two hegemones ex6 taxe"" werepresumably reported to by the exiJ taxe6n. The heraldsmay have reported to one and the standard-bearen tothe other. As has already been mentioned, we don't knowprecisely how the heralds and standard-bearers dividedup the administration of the s2meiai, but it would bereasonable to assume that the two hlgemonese~ taxe6ndivided the regimental administration along the samelines. In other words, the hlgemonese~ taxe6n are theequivalent of the modem regimental quartennaster­sergeants. The third person e~ laxe6n given in the listof regimental staff is not an officier (hegemon). He maybe a regimental storeman. One should note that thehyplretes, or 'attendant" is not listed in the LefebvreStele at eilher manipular or regimental level. this rankis, however, attested in the papyri for this period, andalso in the later Roeder Stele from Hennopolis discussedbelow. It is probable, therefore, that this non-oflicere~taxe~n at regimental level held the official rank ofhypiretes, even though this is not expressly stated in theinscription. In Column L 61 an archypiretes xenilwu,or 'head attendant of the mercenazy force' is listed. Hepreswnably perfonned the same function as the hyplretes(ie. distribution of stores) at a level above the syntaxis.

The documentation of the syntaxis would be theresponsibility of the grammateus (secretary or clerk),Eudoxos son ofTimokJes. Just as the ouragoi arc listedat the bottom ofeach semeia, thegrammateus is listed atthe bottom of the staff of the syntaxis. Presumably theouragol reported to the grammateus with the 'paradestates' etc. of the various semeiai. If this were the case,thegrammateuscould be considered to be the equivalentof the Regimental Sergeant Major ofa modem infantrybanalion.

The 'Jougct' and 'Roeder' Stelai from Hermopolis.

Two further inscriptions from Hennopolis Magna giveus infonnation on the Ptolemaic syntaxis at a later date.Though the basic outline remains unchanged,considerable organizational changes have taken place.The basic work on these two stelai is Friedrich ZUeker,Doppelinschrifl sp"tpJo/emdischer Zeit aus del' Ga".,isonvan Hermopolis Magna (= Abhand/ungen del'Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaflen, Jahrgang/937, Nr. 6, 1938), to which should be added thefragments published inAegyptus 18 (1938) pp. 279-284.Zuker demonstrated that the two stelai together listed a

/3

regiment called 'The Apolloniate Mercenaries' (;&VOlAnoAM>Vla.tCn) composed of mercenaries originallyfrom the Idumaean city of Apollonia, who were nowresident in Egypt. The stelai are dated to 25th. January78, and it is possible that the Idumaean community hadoriginally become displaced by the expansion of theJewish state in the last decades of the second centuryBC.

The two stelai together list six semeiai, numbered fromone to six. The regimental commander, one Herakleidesson of Apollonios, one of the 'First Friends' andhlgem6n, and phrourarchos (garrison-eommander), isin personal command of the fifith slmeia. The reasonforthis is, presumably, that when the regiment was drawnup in ades triplex the fifth semeia would be drawn up atthe back on the right-hand side, and when the regimentwas drawn up in ocies duplex it would be stationed inthe centre of the rear line. Despite damage to the surfaceof the stone, it is clear that all the other slmeiai arecommanded by a simple Mgem6n, they all have anouragos and standard-bearer, and four pentekontarchs,but the anny -herald and the hekatontarch are both gone.The sixth slmeia also had a hyplrerls, listed after thepentekontarchs, who presumably acted as the hypiretesfor the whole regiment. The second $imeia only has threepentekonlarchs, but it also has an officer with some titlebeginning with the letter gamma. He may be thegrammateus of the regiment, doubling up as one of thepentekontarchs of the second semeia. The second semeiaincluded.a sacred-flautist and the fourth a sacred­psalmist, but these are titles connected with the distinctivereligious practices of this Idumaean unit of religiousexiles, and have no military significance.

Despitethe breaks in the stone, Zucker (p. 28) calculatedthat the first semeia had a strength of96, the second 55,the third 68, the fourth 64, the fifth 62 and the sixth 61.In· other words, the regiment was at approximatelyquarter-strength. It is uncertain whether the first semeiawas maintained at a greater strength than the othersdeliberately, or whether this was simply chance. Thesefigures have to be treated with some caution, however,as fragments found subsequently could potentially add afew names onto the tolals for the last three semeiai, butnot substantially. One of these fragments (Aegyptus 18(1938) p. 281) lists one Hemolaos son of Apollonios, amilitary herald (ta.1J.lCXtucd,; KTlpul;) and high.priest, andperhaps fifteen names below the founhslmeia. TheextIafifteen names given are Idumaians. but are perhaps notmilitary persormel. Belowthe third simeia are listed someseventeen or so native Egyptian 'Royal Swordbearers

selected from the Companies' (EYAsAoXla~svol

J,La.Xa.lPO.pOPC)l fkwv..lKOl). We don't knowexaet1ywhothese troops are. Perhaps they could be gendarmes orbaggage-carriers attached to the regiment.

In the first century, therefore, the command andadministrative staff had been slimmed down somewhatThe breaking up ofthe Regimental Headquarters and itsdistribution among the $imeiai mayjust be an cxpediempractised in this regiment, as it was considerably belowstrength. One presumes, however, that the reduction ofthe numbers of military heralds from one per $lmela toone per regiment, and more importantly, thediscontinuation of the rank of hekatontarch, reflectchanges which had taken place throughout the Ptolemaicarmy as a whole.

The Military Refonns of the Early First Ceotury.

We have already mentioned the semeia commanded byPates and Pachrates, who were presumably bothhekatontarehs, during the warof103-101 BC. Other thanthese two, the latest certain reference to a helcatontarchis to Pasion, a hekatontarch in Askepiadcs' Mgemoniaof the soldiers of Akoris in documents of 103 BC (Pros.Ptol. 232S). The abolition ofthe post ofbelcatontareb inthe Ptolemaic anny, and its replacement by a singlehegemon in command of the semeia, may have comeshortly after.

A prominent figure in Ptolemaic military circles duringthese years was one Philostephanos, who may possiblyhave been a descendant ofthe &mous tbird-eenturyGreekwriter Philostephanos of Cyrene. Phitostephanoscommanded the army of Ptolemy IX Soter IT Lathyrosagainst the Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus in 103 BC.His greatest victory was achieved at the battle fought atAsophon, on the east bank of the Jordan, where,commanding an army of only 30,000 foot and horse, heinflicted a defeat on Alexander's army of 50 or 80,000troops by a skilful manoeuvre on the battlefield. Josephus(Ant. Jud. 13.340 - I would like to thank Richard Taytorfor initially bringing my attention to this passage)describes Philostephanos as a military writer (0ta.KtlKoi;), and Pluta.rch has preserved one of hisfragments in the Life of Lycurgus (23.1). PtolemyLathyrus, then an exile, only re-eonquered Egypt in 88­9BC and ruled until 81. lfPhitostephanus was associatedwith these reforms, though there is no evidence that bewas, they may have taken place during this period.

The 'L..efeb\'te Sfele' from Hermopolis (photo: P.M. Fraser)..

/5

The 'Jouget Stele' from Hermopolis (photo: P.M. Fraser).

This stele lists the officers ofthe seeondsemeia of 'The Apolloniate Mercenaries'. Although almost impossible to seehere, there is a letter gamma defining the rank of the person named in the sixth line down; this cannot be interpretedwith any certainlY, but it could possibly stand for grammateus.

/6

Tbe 'Rocder Slele' from t-Icrmopolis (after Zucker).

17

Diag. SI. Catalogue of the Sidon stelai in tabular fonn, indicating which have been pictorially depictedin this volume and their whereabouts. Some of the stelai were damaged to such an extent that, even ifphotographs exist, reproduction in this volume is infeasible.

(IJStele without inscription

[2] Stele ofHekataios ofThcatcira

[3] Stele of Salmas of Adada

[4] Stele ofKartadis the Lycian

[5] Stele of Diodotos son of Patron,a Cretan from Hyrtakina

[6] Stele ofSaettas, a Pisidian of Tennessos

[1] Stele ofDioskourides, a Pisidian from Balboura

[SJ Second Stele without inscription

Platefigures 9a-c

Platcfigure 9d

Platefigure lOa

Platefigure lOb

Platefigures IOc-d

Platefigurc lle

Platefigure lib

Platefigurc lla

Colour Photo 1 Fig. 65

Fig. 66

Colour Photo 2 Fig. 61

Fig. 68

Fig. 69

Fig. 10

Colour Photo 3 Fig. 71

Fig. 72

(9] Stele of Eunostides son of Nikanor, a Perrhaibian Platefigures 12a-c Colour Photo 4 Fig. 73

18

(10] SteIeofa Warriorfrom [?Oroa]nda.

[11] Stele of Aristeidas, a Lakedaimonian from Gythion.

[12] Stele ofStomphias SOD of ApoUonides,a Carian from Euromos.

(13] Stcle erected by the Politeuma of the Kaunians.

[14] Stclc of [?Her]molukos.

(15] Stele of Zenon ofRhodiapolis.

[16] Stele of [As]k1epa[-j.

[17] Third Uninscribed Stele.

Fig. 74

Fig. 75

APPENDIXSTHE PAINTED TOMBSTONESFROMSIDON.

In 1897 a number of painted tombstones had come tolight in SaIda. the ancient Sidon, as a result of chancediscovery. A number \\'ere moved into the caravan-seraiin Saida lhc next year. The discoveries had been madeID the garden known as Bostan el·Hamoud to the southofthetov.n, at the foot ofthe hill dominated by the ancientfortress. A few of the stelai discovered in 1897 "''ere leftwhere they had been found. TIle discoveries had arousedquite a substantial amount of curiosity in the scholarly';\l"'Orld, and in 1903 Macridy Bey camed out a sondageon behalf of the Imperial Ottoman ArchaeologicalMuseum in the area in order to recover what he could ofthe material which still remained. Three pits were sunkin the garden. From the first came numerous fragmentsof stucco belonging to stelai destroyed in lhc course ofthe earlier excavations, and from the other two a diverseselection of material, including some late Hellenisticpottery and lwo fragments of vases decorated in relief_ith represenlations of the god Bes. At a depth of sevenmetres a wall was found, late in dau; constroeted of re­used material including a number of painted tombstones.

All the tombstones showed deceased warriors, andMacr:idy Bey concluded tMlthe material originally camefrom a military necropolis established by foreignmercenaries in the vicinity. It is reasonably safe toCXlnclude that these mercenaries all belonged to unitscomprising the garrison of Sidon. Seven of the beuerpreserved Slelai were removed to the ArchaeologicalMuseum in Istanbul. The others, left in Sidon, haven't'SW'\ived. Photographs of a few of Ihese tombstones leftID Sidon exist. This group of material has not beensubjected to the scholarly attention it descrves. Academicopinion has been divided as 10 whether Ihe troopsbelonged to the Seleucid or Ptolemaic army, andOJI'lSequentlyas to the date ofthe malerial. The argumentsrun as follows: Essentially, if the stelai are Ptolemaic,they should dale to the third century, as Koile-Syria waslost to the Seleucids after 199 BC.lfthe stelai are Seleucidthey should belong second century. Current opinionterns to be that the stelai are Ptolemaic, daling 10 the

e third century.

~y opinion is that the tombstones must date to the secondc:entury. Firstly one of the soldiers is dressed in Romanc:;uipmenl, for which there is no evidence in eilher armybefore the lOOs. Secondly, one of the deceased holds the-a:nk of semeiophoros, or standard-bearer, and so too is

unlikely to date any earlier than the 16Os. Thus a date inthe 160sorafterscems reasonably certain, and Iheyamldhardly be given a date later than the second century, forstylistic and other reasons. Given the Ptolemaicintervention in Koile-Syria in the years 1.50-14.5, thequestion ofwhether they are Ptolemaic or Seleucid mustremain more open to debate. My opinion is that theymust be Ptolemaic, and they must date to the years of theintervention.

The PoliJeumo.

The Cuncrary inscriptions of many of the soldiers tell usthat they belonged to politeumata. Politeumata are thusfar only attested for the Ptolemaic army, and only for thesecond century. It is, indeed, possible thal they wereanother innovation dating to the reign of Philometor.Politeuma could be translated as 'citizen body', but howthe system actually functioned in Egypt is more or lesscompletely unknown, and I do not intend to enter into alengthy and inconclusive discussion ofthe institution here(on the politeumata at Sidon see M. Rostovtzeff, TheSocial and Economic History of the Hellenistic WorldlIP (1953) p. 1401 n. 137; Launey pp. 1081-1084).Although the politeumata are thus far attested as existingonly in Ptolemaic Egypt, this may simply be a trick: ofthe evidence. Papyrological evidence, of which asubstantial proponion is concerned with legal matterssuch as an individual's membership ofa poJileuma, hasonly survived for Egypt in any quantity, but not for theSeleucid or Antigonid Empires. Consequently it wouldbe extremely hazardous to assert that the polileumata"""ere an exclusively Ptolemaic institution, though thishappens to be the case at the moment.

We might compare the Ptolemaic institution of theepigon~.The bearers ofthis status seem to be descendantsof the original Gracco-Macedonian settlers whoconstituted the Ptolemaic body·politic. The institutionis attesled in imrnwnerable papyri from Egypt, but outsideEgypt only in a single funerary inscription (assumingIhe reading to be correct) from Pagasai Demetrias(Polemon 4 (1949/50) p. 83-4 no. 256),comrnemmorating "Solion son of Dionysios, one of theepigonoi".

Eal"tlrovlUOVOC}lOO

'W)\I £7tl"(O\IC.oV

Noethnic is given in this inscription, which, presumably,should be taken as an indication that the deceased was acitizen ofDemetrias. Whal the institution of the epigonoi

19

was in the Antigonid kingdom, and what relationship itbore to the Ptolemaic institution of the epigone areunknown, but had this single inscription not survived,we might have assumed thal the P10lemaic institution ofthe epigone was an isolated phenomenon.

Many scholm (eg. Morkholm p. 138 n.12) have simplyasswned the politeumata to have been an institutioncommon to all the Hellenistic kingdoms. Tarn (BactriQlp. 18 nt 5) has postulated lhe existence ofa poJiIeumaof Syrians in Seleuceia-on-Tigris from a passage inJosephus (Ant. Jud 18.372), who tells us that during theParthian period there lived in Seleuceia manyMacedonians, even more Greeks, and there were alsonot a few Syrians "enrolled in the citizen body"(otKOOCJ\V 5aO'tTlv 1tOAJ..o~ IJE:v McuC:OOovQ:w, 7tA&~crtm5s E:U.T\vs, sonv &: Kal EuJXOv OUK OA.~yov 'toSI.l.1tOA.~'tEUOJ.1£vov).Tarn argued thal this last word"which is the verb of 1tOA.~'tf:UJ.l.CX, not of 1tOA.~/; or1tOA.l'tT\r;' demonstrated that the ....,ordpoliIeuma was notconfined to Egypt But it is not the verb ofpofiteuma, itis simply afona ofthe Verbeq>j..L1tOA.l'tE00l "'to hold citizenrights', a word found in Thucydides, from which thenoun pofiteuma is alsoderived. ElsewhereJosephus (Ant.Jud 18.378) tells us that whoever of the Syrians "whowas a citizen" (OftOOOV T\V LoPClJVSJ.l.1tOA~t8UOV)jOined

in the hostility to the Babylonian Jews. What thesepassages seem to imply is that Seleuceia, and the othercities which had once been within the Seleucid Empire,had a single citizen body, which may have been called apo/iteuma, which included many Macedonians, moreGret;ks, and not a few Syrians. The passages do not seemto imply that Seleuceia had a poJiteuma ofMacedonians,a separate pollteuma of Greeks and another politeumaof Syrians, which is what Tarn wished to read into thepassage.

The Ptolemaic politeumata seem to have been crealed ata specific date for a specific purpose, and they are namedafter different ethnic groups: 'the pofiteuma of theCretans' for example. Ifpoliteuma did exist as a word oras an institution in the Seleucid Empire, for which thereis as yet no fmn evidence, there is no reason why it shouldhave been in exactly the same fonn as thc Ptolemaicpo/fteuma. All thal can be said is that the politeuma,where il is attested in the inscriptions on the stelai fromSidon, is an ethnic group ofexactly the same type as thePtolemaic pollteuma. Therefore a Ptolemaicimerpretation would fit this matcrial very well. Anargumentum e silentia is, however, never secure.

20

Other Considerations.

Art historical considerations can rarely be used to assipdates 10 ancient material with a margin of error oranything less than several decades. Nevertheless, wbcaart-historians have dcalt with the Sidon steW, they ba\~

tended to give them a later, rather than an earlier date.Blanche R. Brown (Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaicsand theAlerandrian Slyle (1957) p. 87) thought that theloculus-slabs were all in the 'popular' Style which onlyemerged in the second century. The 'popular' Si)ie

marked a drop from the dominant level of artisticproduction"'to a low, popular level which is cbaracterizI::lby simplified, conventionalized fonns and compositiClllS"'She noted that, although the Sidon stelai derive from Idifferent stylistic source than the Alexandrian materi2!which she was studying, and they therefore use differeadecorative motifs, they are nevertheless comparable 10the tombstones belonging to her 'Fourth Style', whidltdate to the second cenrmy. They"isolate, abstract.~and repeat symbols"', a phenomenon which can also bec:aseen in the treatment of the hwnan figures.

Peter Callaghan (8&4 75 (1980) p. 45) considered tbalthe Trefoil Style wreath, which hangs in thefriezebelowthe pediment on many of these loculus slabs. indicates ...date in the "latter half of the period of Seleucidomination" (ie. the second half of the second century).He realized that this date caused historical problems, asmany of the mercenaries came from west of the TawtlSMountains, and so should not have been recruited fIX"service in the Seleucid anny according to the terms ~the Treaty of Apameia, but affinned his conviction tha:l..the style of the stelai demand that they be placed in thislattcr period". If the soldiers were in Ptolemaic ratherthan Seleucid service, ofcourse, this problem disappeaa

The letter-fonns of the inscriptions could be put in thelaiC third century, but would fit a date in the middle clthe second century well. The letters are not apicated:that is, the legs do not splay out at the ends, but there issome thickening. The broken-barred alpha appears, afeature which is rarely found before the second century.Likewise the top and bonom strokes of the sigma ~parallel, which is another feature characteristic of thesecond century and beyond. The theta has a stroke in themiddle, and this feature is rarely found before the middleof the second century. On the other hand there is som:fine cunring in the letters upsi/on and alpha, which isnot a characteristic feature of a date any later than thesecond, or even the third, century. The pi has its righlleg shorter than the left in most cases, but in some the

legs are equal, and this lengthening is a process whichtook place during the second century. In some cases theletter omicron is equal to the other letters in size, but inothers it is small and hangs in the middle of the line,which is a late third century feature. For these reasons adate in the middle of the second century would fit theepigraphic style well, but arguments based purely on onletter-forms can never be regarded as conclusive.

In conclusion, therefore, although complete certainty isimpossible, it seems safest to conclude that these stelaimust belong to a Ptolemaic garrison installed in Sidonduring the intervantions of Philometor in 150 or in147- 145 BC. It is also possible that a Ptolemaic: garrisonwas maintained in the city between these twointerventions. In the discussion of the individual stelaiwhich follows, I shall assume these dales, but I shallalso discuss in turn the additional dating evidencesupplied by some the individual stelai.

Catalogue.

Seventeen (most ofthem inscribed) individual stelai wererecovered either in whole or in part, but of these onlyseyen survive, thanks to the efforts ofMacridy Bey, andare in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. I haveonly given a shortened bibliography to the principalreferences where each item has been diSCl.lSSCd. Mendel'scatalogueofthe sculptures ofthe Istanbul ArchaeologicaJMuseum, where cited, contains a full bibliography ofearlier publications.

The sequence in which the stelai are labelled is the onewhich was found to be most convenient for thecomposition of the colour reconstruction plates, and isof no other particu1ar significance. Diag. SI. on Page 18catalogues the stelai in tabular fonn, indicating whichhave been pictorially depicted in this volume and theirwhereabouts.

Stelai [I] and [2] have been used for Plate 9:

11) Stde without inscription (Platefigum9a-c).

Mendel no. 107.

This stele is preserved in the Archaeological Museum inIstanbul (Jnv. 1169). Three warriors are shown, the oneon the left is, presumably, the deceased. He shakes thehand of lIle second warrior. while the third warrior also5tretchesout his right hand too. The shaking ofbands issymbolic of the departure of the deceased on the journeyto Hades. All three warriors wear helmets of the sametype, and carry the thureos shield and a single spear.

The helmet shown is of a quite distinctive type, whichcannot be parallcled precisely by any surviving exampleofa Hcllcnistic helmet. It is remarkable how the majorityof the warriors dcpicted on the Sidon stelai wear thisidentical type of helmet: we might call it 'Sidon TypeA'. The helmet, which is best shown in a close-upphotograph of the warrior on the left, vaguely resemblesa mediaeval "kettle-hat", with a deep crown worn in aslightly' pushed-back' positiOIL It has a wide brim. which.to judge by the Stele of Salmas of Adada (Stele [3D,came to something of a point at the front The brimsplayed out at the side, and down at the back., and so itrather resembles the brim of a hellenistic helmet of theBoeotian type except that there are no indentations inthe side of the rim. The top of the helmet has a crestwhich consists of a sort of 'box' an inch or so wide. Itconsists of two side-pieces and a small curving plate atthe from, covering the gap between lIle two side-pieces.All three metal plates are 'sandwiched' between twofurther plates, onc at the top of the crest., and the other atthe bottom, attaching the crest to the skull ofthe hc:lmet.The helmet is decorated with a detachable horsehairplume, which is dyed red in all cases, regardless of theother unifonn colour. Presumably the end of the plumewas crimped togcthcr and attached to a pin, which wasthen stuck into a narrow bronze tube soldered to the frontof the crest.

It would be reasonable to suppose that a large number ofthese helmets "'ere produced in factories in Alexandriaand elsewhere to equip the mercenary anny recentlyassembled in Egypt in preparation for the impendingSyrian Campaign. One metal\\'Orking establishment forthe production of weaponry, presumably a statemanufactory, existed at Memphis. Limestone workshopmodels used in this type of 'mass·production' processhave been recovered from this weapons-factory, and are

21

now housed in the A1Jard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam(C.S. Ponger, Kata/og der griechischen und rOmischenSkulptur. der steinernen gegegenstdnde und derstuckplastik im AI/ani Piersan Museum zu Amsterdam(1942) pp. 78-88).

The oval thulros shields carried by all three figwes seemto be identical. They are made from \\00<1 faced withwhite leather, and are divided in two by a median spineand an umbo in the centre. 80lh spine and umbo aremade of bronze. The heavy shield would be held by ahandleplacedovera recess in the shield behind the umbo.To either side of the umbo project two bronze flanges.,which would have been used to nail the umbo securelyin place, and prevent it being broken off the surface ofthe shield. These flanges are of slightly varying shapes.The shields were also, presumably, produced 'en masse',so it is difficult to understand what the significance ofthis feature may have been. In a number ofcases it seems,at first glance, that the leather shield facing is colouredblack or yellow on one side of the central spine, but thisis simply the shading technique employed by the artists.The spine of the shield ofPlatefigure 9b is obscured bythe warrior to the right J assume it is identical to therest, but this is not entirely cenain. The inside of theshield is shown by Platefigure 9•. It seems to bemedium-brown in the centre; presumably of unfacedwood, but it seems to have a white rim indicating thatthe leather facing was twned over the edge. The veryedge of the rim is bound with a strip ofmctal. The shadingtechnique used by the artists, incorporating variousshades of grey, frequenlly makes it difficult to decidewhether the rim is iron or bronze, though in theoverwhelming majority ofcases bronze is clearly intendedto be shown.

All four individuals wear tunics ofthe conventional Greek'T-shin' type: that is with two short sleeves. The tunicsare worn belted at the waist, but the tunic is allowed to'overfall' at the waist, obscuring the waistbelt. All threefigures wear tunics of different colours. On the stele thered of that of the left-hand figure, and the green of thatof the right-hand are quite clear, but the colour of thetunic of the central figure has almost been lost by surfacedamage. A purplish-grey, it can be seen most clearly inthe space just above where the forearm crosses over hisbody. Mendel describes this colour as 'rose lie de vin',in line with french military practice. The same term 'Uedevin', or 'wine-dregs', is used to describe the regimentalfacing colour of the 13th. and 14th. Regiments ofCuirassiers of the French Napoleonic anny' both raisedin 1809. The same colour, preserved in a tombstone from

22

Pagasai-Demetrias, was also used to distingui.sh one ofthe light cavalry regiments of the Antigonid army.

This variation in tunic colour could be interpreted intwo ways, the three individuals depicted on this stelecould either belong to different infantry synta;uis(regiments) of the Ptolemaic army, or perhaps somesystem existed whereby each ofthesemeiai in a syntariswore a tunic of a different colour. I consider the secondexplanation to be the less likely one, though it is diffiOJ1tto see why, in such case. the three comrades shown inthis stele enrolled in three different regiments, ratherthan in three semeiai of the same regiment One wouldhave thought that they would have enrolled in the samesyntaxis when tlley were recruited. Likewise, it is difficultto see why all the other deceased infantrymen in the Sidoostclai are shown wearing red tunics, except for Stele (8J.ifthcy arc from diffcrent.syntaxeis. We have seen though.through the example supplied by the Lefebvre stele fromHennopolis, that a Hellenistic garrison could contain allsorts ofelements drawn from all sorts offorrnations, andit is not inherently unlikely that the garrison of Sidoowas drawn from a disproportionate number ofsyntauisofthe Ptolemaic army\\'earing red tunics. Following wdJ..known Greek military tradition red would, after all, ha\~been the most popular colour for clothing.

The white cloaks worn by tv/o out ofthe three individualsdepicted on this stele, and by many othersoldiCll paintedon the stelai, are ofa uniform colour and type. The whitecloak is fonned from an oblong of white material, 'wornvertically, hanging down as low as the calves and pinnedat the right shoulder. The two ends ofthe cloak are pinnedunderneath, so the cloak-pin is concealed. The samewhile cloak is worn by all other cloaked warriors shownon the Sidon stelai, with the single exception of thePerrhaibian cavalryman (platefigure 12a), who maybelong to an allied contingent rather than to a unit ofthePtolemaic anny. It seems, therefore, that we are dealingwith anothcr item ofequipment produced and issued tothe Ptolmaic army 'en masse'. White is a uniform colourfound frequently in representations of warriors fromEgypt, and these white cloaks may have been adistinguishing mark of the Ptolemaic army of the era.The white thulros could perhaps be regarded as anotherdistinguishing mark of the Ptolemaic army too, thoughthis would be more difficult to defend, as white thulroiare shown in all manner of other monuments with noPtolemaic connections.

(2] Stele of Hekataios of Theateira (platefigure 9d).

Mendel no. 104.

EkCl't[alO)v Mll\1Ol'&VOlJ900:t&l[PllV]oV 01 CUXlpm

Eka"t[am xpMcrt:&l1a4'<~

To Hekataios,. son of MenogenesofThyateira. His comrades (erected this stele).

Oh good Hekataiosfarewell!

This stcle is preserved in Istanbul ArchaeologicalMuseum (Inv. 1168). Hekataios is from the city ofThyateira in Lydia. The military equipment shown isidentical to the other figures in Plate 9, and the tunic isred, as for Platefigure 9a. In this case, however, the tipof the sword scabbard, obscured on the other figures, isshown projecting below the shield. The sword andscabbard seem to be of the same type as those carried inStele (7]. The boots are shown very clearly on the stele,and are of a standard HellenisLic type. A felt 'sock', inthis case light tan in colour, is held in place against thefoot by a sandal arrangement Loops of leather sewn intothe sole and a leather backing on the boot are lacedtogether by a long boot-strap, crossed over repeatedly atthe front At the top of the boot this bool-strap is held inplace by a peculiar Lie. Instead of being Lied in a bow­knot at the front, the lace is wrapped round the top ofthesock, and then each end is tucked under in a bow at eitherside of the boot, not in the front. The leather strap-workis of a medium brown colour.

Ste!a; (3), (4) and ('1 have been us«! {Ot Plate 10:

(3] Stele of SaImas of Adada (platdigurt:10a).

Mendel DO. 105; Sayee. Classical RlNitw 28 (1914) p.197 DO. 2; Dintsis pI. 68, 1; Klaus Parlasca. SyrischearabreJie!s hellenistischer und r<'mischer Zei/.Fundgruppen und Probleme (- TrierWinck.e/mQnnsprogramme 3. 1981) pp. 6, 23 n. 14, pt 2,2; Bar·Kochva, Judas Maccabeus p. 581 pI. ix.

IaA"" MoA(t:<O A]lia&(o]XPTlo[u: Xalpe].

Salmas son of Moles of Adada,good man farewelll

Thc stc1e is now in Istanbul Archaeological Museum (Inv.1167). The inscription was first restored incorrectly, witha Semitic name and patronymic, as Salmamodes son ofHadadcs. Louis Robert (OMS I p. 187) recognized thatthe subject came from the Pisidian city of Adada, andrestored the Anatolian personal name Salrnas (Zgusta1360-1). The patronymic, whieh must be restored withtwo letters only following the break, can be restored withan irregular genitive form ofthe Anatolian personal nameMoA.lll; (Zgusta 946-1; Robert, Noms indig~nes p. 353­5).

The helmet worn by Salmas is oC'Siden Type A', thoughthis is not immediately obvious as the anist has founddifficulty in depicting the peak frontally. The crest-boxis not clear due to minor damage to the stele, but thehelmet definitely does not seem to be of the Boeotiantype, as has been suggested by Bar-Kochva (JudasMaccabaeus p. 581). Note that the front of the peak ofthe helmet comes to a point, a feature which is only shownclearly in this stele. Salmas also wears a mail cuirass,which is shown without shoulder guards. It appears tobe almost like a T-shirt in shape, though without anysleeves. Rectangular in shape, without any reinforcementat the shoulders, it has a simple neck-hole at the top toput the head through.

Salmas is the only individual among the large numberof infantrymen equipped with thureoi depicted on theSidon stelai to wear a mail cuirass. Upon immediateconsideration of this phenomenon, it could be arguedthat one thureopharos infanuyman in a mail euirass doesnot consLitute a whole 'Romanized' Ptolemaic army. Asall but one of the thureophoroi are not equipped withmail cuirasses, the :ugument would go, onc should rather

23

argue for a third-century and pre-'Romanization' date.Thus Salmas would be some sort offreak, equipped withGalatian Ihllnos and mail cuirass, but with a Greekhelmet I do not believe this to be the case. 1have arguedelsewhere that the maniples of hastali of the Romanlegion were normally more lightly equipped than theother maniples down until the later second century, andeven after that date they might frequently operate withlighter equipment. Consequently it is possible, evenprobable, that of the six simeiai in a Ptolemaic'Romanized' infantry regiment, the t\\'O in the front rankdid not wear the full panoply which included the mailcWrass. The fact that only one of the Sidon stelai showsan infantryman in full panoplycouId be pure CXIincidence.Another reason may be that the cuirass was not nonnallyworn by troops on garrison-duty, and consequently hasnot been shown by the anist in most cases.

The stucco has been badly damaged around the waist, sowe do not know whether Salmas is wearing a waist-beltor not. It is highly probable that he is though, not onlybecause of the way the cuirass is shown narrowingtowards the waist., but also because it is always standardpractice to support the mail euirass with a waist-belt inorder to take some ofthe strain imposed by the weight ofthe cuirass away from the shoulders. The outline of thebaldric cannot be clearly made out on the stele. A singlebrown line can be made out, as if Salmas is wearing asimple leather baldric like the other infantrymen on thestelai. However there seems to be another dark linerunning parallel to this brown one, indicating that thebelt may be much wider and covered in iron.eonseq!uently both waist· and shoulder-belt have beenrestored as if made of leather covered with iron plates,in the Roman fashion, though this could be a mistake.The boots are also different from those worn by the otherinfantrymen on the stelai. They seem to be a proper 'boot'rather than a strap·worksandal There is no viSIble lacing,,and it looks as though the boots are laced at the front,but the laces are concealed in a 'pocket' running downthe front of the boot. The top of the boot is painted in aratherIightershadeofbrown, as ifthe felt 'sock' normally\\-"Om beneath the sandal is protruding above the bootproper. Note that there is a slight indentation in the toeof the boot between the big toe and the rest of the boot.

The red tunic is ofa slightly darker shade than that usedon Stelai [I) and (2), and is moving towards crimson inhue rather than a neutral red, but this is possibly due tothe paints used by different artists, rather than to anyactual difference in the shade of the cloth. The rim oftheshield has been restored as iron in Plate 10, but the colour

24

is very difficult to establish, whether iron or bronze, dueto the shading techniques used. It does, however, appearto be iron.

[4) Stele of Kartadis the Lycian (platefigureIOb).

Mendel no. 106; Sayee, Classical Review.28 (1914) p.196-7 no. L

nlVo.pE:i',w 'to 1tOAlT&O}l(l

Ko.ptalhv Epj.1(XK't\JhAoOAolCl.Ov XPTIcrtE lCell a.A.f.07t)::

Xo.lpE:

The polilellma of the Pinareansto Kartadis son ofHermaktibilosthe Lycian, Good man, a painless

farewell!

The personaJ names Kartadis and Hermaktibilos bothseem to be unique. Sayee divided them up differently,but noted that his division was "ofcourse. conjectural...Macridy Bey's division, followed here, seems preferable.Both appear in this fonn in Zgusta (543·1, 355·11), andcan be compared with the forms KartaIis (543-2) andHcrmaktas (355-10). It seems probable, as the po/ilellmaof the Pinareans set up the tombstone of Kartadis, thatKartadis himself was a Lycian from Pinara, though theinscription simply calls him a Lycian. Nothing further isknoMl ofthe politeumaofthe Pinareans. We have alreadynoted that Lycians are attested serving in the garrison ofCyprus under Philometor, and that undec Euergetes, andperhaps under Philometor earlier, a regiment ofLycianswas stationed at Paphos. We don't know whether Kartadisbelonged to a regiment which bad been in Ptolemaicservice for a long timealready, which was then transferredfor service in the Syrian War, or whether the regimenthad been raised for service only a short time before thecampaign. With Kartadis we go back to the standard'Romanized' infantryman as shown on the stelai, thoughthis time the deceased is shown without his white cloak

(5J Stele of Diodotos son of Palron, a Cretan fromHyrtakina (plalefigure 10e).

lalOOert no.7; Macridy Beyp. 552 no. 4; Launey pp. 284­5 no. 4; Bac-Kochva. Judas Maccabaeus p. 574 pI. ii.

tuOO[OWI}t na:qx(lVoKpt]n Yp-m.KWfil\

AElallool; aJ;u.X; "'''roO'TT]I; ClCpVSpl.

!J.\oOOn:XPTlcrn.:xa.tpE:.

To DiodolOS son of Patron,a Cretan from Hyrtakina.

Athabous (set this up) fittingly toher husband.

Good Diodotosfarewelll

Though the inscription was perfectly legible at the timeofcopying. Robert (OMS I p. 187) strongly doubted theinterpretation of the third line. It is, indeed, difficult tounderstand. The name Athabous is included in theLexicon o/Greek Personal Names. Some irregular formofthe ethnic'Axios' , citizen of the Cretan stateofAxos,might lie behind the difficult letters A~InL. The steleof Diodotos was dug up by the local inhabitants beforethe rescue excavations of Macridy Bey got under way,and it was not one of tombstones saved by removal toIstanbul (Maeridy-Bey p. 552 "ConserveeaSidon"'). Bar­Kochva states that the stele was stored in theArchaeological Museum in Istanbul and "seems to havedisappeared"', but this is a mistake. Following exhaustiveenquiries to photographic libraries, which have all endedin failure, it seems that no good photographs or negativesof this and of the other lost stelai have survived.ConsequenUy we only have very small, old photographsto work with.

la1abert tells us that the Diodotos wears a red tunic anda white cloak. His helmet is yellow Ma dmier en formede crete et ajugulaire fixee SOWlS le menton"', "with aridge-shaped crest and with a strap tied under the chin".By the term 'jugulaire' la1abert probably means a cheek­piece rather than a chin-strap, and a light patch on thecheek, indeed, looks like a bronze cheek-piece. Launey(p. 284) calls this a helmet of 'Macedonian' type,whetever this means, but it seems rather to resemble thenormal 'standard-issue' Ptolemaic infantry helmet of'Sidon Type A' in shape. Adark patch behind the helmet

looks like a falling plume, but this could be local damageto the surface. Diodotos seems to wear boots, in line withnormal Cretan practice, as his legs below the knee, andespecially at the ankles. are represented as being muchthicker than they would be iftbe artist intended to showthe legs bare. Diodotus is depicted shaking bands with acloaked person to his front, who is presumably his wifeAthabous. Jalabert detected two faint concentric tracesof yellow paint behind the head of this figure., whichprobably represent a sun-hat Behind Diodotus stands aservant (platefigure IOd), bare-headed, dressed in agreen tunic and carrying Diodotus' anns, a round shieldand a short lance. The shield is described a yeUew. It isimpossible to decide whether the artist intended to showa bronze shield. or a wooden or leather shield paintedyellow The rim of the shield is painted in an unknowndark colour, which could perhaps be taken as anindication Utat the shield isn't bronze.

Bar-Kochva assumed that Dioootos was a pbalangite.but this seems to be incorrect. Cretans usually fought asshielded archers, but there is no trace ofabow anywherein the painting. Latmey (p. 284) noted this, and suggestedthat Diodotes could perhaps be amnected with the 2,000'shielded Cretans' found in the service of Antiochus mduring the Hyrcanian campaign in 209 BC (polyb.10.29.6). He further suggested that this distinctive typeof light infantryman might have been called a'Neocretan'. I do not agree with this, and I prefer tointerpret Neocretan as meaning simply 'Cretan neos' (ie.Cretan young soldier). It seems best to conclude,therefore, that Dioootes is a light infantryman. It is quiteprobable, given that Cretans made exceptionally goodlight infantry, that Diodotus belonged to a light infantryregiment entirely composed of Cretans. This regimentwas presumably supplied to Philometor in accordancewith a treaty ofalliance between the Cretan League andPhilometor, who currenUy held the office of president(prostates) of the League. Diodotos' servant seems to becarrying a single, rather small, throwing-spear, but thismight be artistic convention, and., like the Roman veJes.it may be that a numberofspears were carried at anyonetime.

25

Stelai [6], [7] and [8] have been used for Plate 11:

16) Stele of S~ttas.a Pisidian of Termessos(platdigure 11e).

Mendel no. 103; Sayee, Classical Review 28 (1914) p.197 no. 4.

~ TpOIc:ov50u Tcp)J.T\O'­crerov WlV npcx:; Oupvoav50ll,;.

nl<O"oo,,~" O'l)J.L~Xoc; TepJ.LT\O'O'&6)­v 't(i)V 1tPCX:; Oupvoavoo~ n\al.&>v'to 1tOM:l'tEU~'tov &So.U't(I)V 1tOM:-

\'t11v XPT\O"tE X(uP&.

Sacttas son ofTrokondas, one of the Tennes­sians of those near Oinoanda.

A Pi<si>dian. A symmachos from the Termessia­ns of those near Oinoanda. The politeuma

of the Pisidians (erected this stele) 10 one of their ownciti-

zens. Good man farewell!

The stele is now in Istanbul Art:hacologica1 Museum (lnv.1489). Bo<h Saettas (Zgusta 1355) and TroI<ondas{Zgusta1512-31) are Anatolian names. The fact that Seattascomes from the Pisidian communityof'TheTennessiansnear Oinoanda' is of some chronological significance.1be Tennessians had separated into two communities ofTennessos the Great and Tennessos the Small al sometime before 189 BC, and 'Tennessos near Oinoanda'clearly refers to the second city (L.Roben, Helfenica lO(1953) p. 196 n. 3). Consequently it is possible to arguethat this stele must be later. This does not necessarilyfollow, however, for, as Bikennan (p. 89 n. I) pointedOUI, the two communities may have effectively separatedsome considerable time before the separation becamefonnal. The implication of the inscription is, however,that a treaty of symmachia (alliance) existed betweenPhilometor and 'the Termessians near Oinoanda'"Consequently the balance of probability would seem tobe lhat lhe ""0 cities had fonnally separated, and so lhisand the other stelai must date 10 after 189. This is not,however, a certain point.

Although the stele is heavily damaged, the details ofSaettas' equipment can be made out sufficiently to enableus to make a reconsInJction (platefigure 11e). Saettasdoes nol come from a 'Romanized' regiment ofinfantrY.rather he carries a small circular bronze shield (pe/re),and so comes from a regiment of pehasts. The refonn ofthe Ptolemaic infantry along Roman lines did not,

26

obviously, extend 10 all regiments. as it was still necessary10 maintain regiments of missile troops, slcirmishers etc.equipped and organized along lines more suitable fortheir battlefield role. In the classical period peltasts badbeen lightly-equippedjavelin-throwing troops, but in theHellenistic period they become a species of troops whocould either fight in a phalanx line or in tooserfonnations. As \\-ell as their bronze peltai they carried aspear. According to AsclepiodolUS (1.2) they stood in asense in belween the heavy infanUy of the phalanx andthe missile troops, for their pelte was much smaller andlighter than the shields used by the heavy infanUy, andlheir spears were much shoner than those used by thehopliles. Regiments of peltasts continued to serve in thePtolemaic anny later on in the second century. At theBattle of Asophon in 103 BC the exiled king Ptolemy IXSoter Il 'Lathyros', then ruler of Cyprus, fought at therequesl of the local populations to protect them againstthe expanding Jewish Hasmonean Kingdom. We are toldthat Lalhyros' army, commanded by the generalPhilostephanos, contained some skirmishers (promachOl)equipped with bronze shields (Joseph. Ant. Jud. 13.339).

The sword is clearly shown, both on this stele, and onthe stele of Dioskourides. Both S\\ooord and scabbard arelong, thin, and pointed: almost like an elongated trianglein shape. The SYo'Ord hilt has a bilobale iron pommel anda bronze guard the sides ofwhich curve inwards slightlytowards the middle. The scabbard was presumably madeof wood covered in brown leather, and it ends in an ironchape, of an elongated egg·shape. The sword andscabbard were worn on a very shon baldric, hanging atan angle ralher than vertically just below the left armpitThe shape of the SYo"ord can perhaps be understood bestas a late Greek version of the Spanish gladius. However,if so, it is a very poor imitation of the robust Romanweapon. We may perhaps assume that the Greeks simplydidn'l have the technology which the Celtiberians hadto produce the same reliable and effective steel blades. Itis surely significant that when Poseidonius of Apameia(Diod. .5.33.3-4) descnbes the techniques the Celtiberiansused to carbonize their steel, he doesn't fully understandthe process he has witnessed. This may be why the'Romanized' infantrymen shown on these stelai stillcontinue to cany fighting spears, and carry onIy swordsas aw:iliaJ')' weapons.

The helmet is not of 'SidoD 'type A', but is of a quitediffereD! design, much closer, wilh check.piea:s, and witha completely different type of plume and plume-bolder.We may perhaps tenn this style of helmet 'SidoD 'typeBt

, though it is so close to the Seleucid 'Ascalon 1)pe' it

is perhaps too purist to distinguish between the two. Awhite spiral line can be detet:ted on this helmet, and alsoon the similarly-shaped helmet worn by Dioskourides.Given that Dioskourides holds the rank of standard­bearer, and given that it was standard Greek practice toshow badges of rank on the helmet in the fonn ofspecialplumes or badges, I had previously suggested that thismight be a painted spiral indicating rank (Nick Sekwlda,The Army ofAlexander the Great (1984) p. 39). Saettas,however, seems to be a private soldier, so thisinterpretation is dubious. Bikennan (p. 89 n. 2) thoughtthat the lines might indicate an ornamental volute onthe side of the helmet, and this interpretation has beenfollowed in the ret:onstruction paintings. It should benoted, however, that this spiral line appears only on thestelai of Saettas and Dioskourides, which are both quiteobviously by the same artist, as both individuals arepainted in the same poses. It may, then, be an idiosyncracyof the tet:hnique used by the artist to depict a shiningmetal helmet.

The boots worn by both Saettas and Dioskourides arealso different from those worn by the other individualsshown on the stelai. The felt 'sock' seems to be ofa lightblueish-grey, almost white, colour, while the straps areof a reddish-brown colour. These variant colours couldalso be an idiosyncracy of the artist. There is anotheridiosyncracy which distinguishes the stelai ofSaettas andDioskourides from the others. The boUom of both thesestelai is painted in imitation of marble. The stele ofSaettas is heavily damaged in this area, and the marblingcan only be discerned faintly, but it is quite clear on thestele ofDioskourides. The wall ofthe hypogeum in whichthese two stelai were positioned, in order to seal off twoof the loculi, would probably have been decorated with alow band of marbling running round the dado, and thebottom of the stelai was decorated in the same way tomatch. It is possible that other stelai may also have beendecorated in this way, but many have been heavilydamaged in this area.

The inscription mentions that Saeltas is one of thesymmachoi (allies), and the term also occurs in theinscription painted on the stele of Dioskourides ofBalboura. Launey (p. 41) notes the implication in thisthat the native cities of these two Pisidian soldiers musthave concluded treaties ofalliance (symmachia) with thePtolemaic king, which obliged the two cities to send theirmilitary forces to help him in time of war. Consequently,it is possible that the equipment etc. which the twoPisidians use, which is slightly different from that usedby the other warriors shown on the stelai, may have been

supplied by their own Pisidian cities, rather than beingofEgyptian manufacture. This is, Ibelieve, unlikely. ThePisidian cities, I believe, simply sent a specified numberof their warriors to Egypt, and they were equipped,organized into regiments, and trained there.

17] Stele of Dioskourides, a Pisidian from Balboura(platefigure lIb).

Mendel no. 102; Sayce, Classical Review 28 (1914) p.197 n. 3; Paul Couissin, Les Institutions mi/itaires etnavales (1932) pI. 38, 2 (drawing); Blanche R Brown,Ptolemalc Paintings and Mosaics and the AlexandrianStyle (1957) p. 87, pI. 20, 2; Dintsis pI. 41, 3; KlausParlasca, Syrische Grabre/iefs he/lenis/lscher undrtJmischer Zei/. Fundgruppen und Probleme (= TrierWinckelmannsprogramme 3. 1981) pp. 6, 23 n. 14, pI.2,3; Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabeus p. 582 pI. x.

6l00KOOptlht B;().~ooo lllOmTlBa.p~oui..EuOU~~X((lv

aTI~P&XPTlO"reXcupe

Kepa.uU; 0 cx&Njx:X;; Bcr't1lm:.

Oh Dioskourides son of Exaboos, Pisidian,Balbouran of the symmachoi,

standard-bearer. Goodman farewelll

Keraias his brother set up (this side).

This monument, preserved in the Istanbul ArchaeologicalMuseum Onv. 1490), is interesting for a large number ofreasons, hence it is the loculus slab from Sidon whichhas been published most frequently. It is the firstattestation ofthe Pisidian city ofBalboura, and so suppliesa terminus ante quem for the fOWldation of that city. Thename occurs here in the form Barboula, which is notunusual and occurs frequently in later attestations ofthecity. Phrygian, ora Pisidian dialect ofPhrygian, was oneofthe languages spoken in Pisidia. In Phrygian, an Indo­European language, the second elementofthe city's name-boura meant 'town', as in the English 'borough'.Another Pisidian town was called Anaboura, which isknown to have meant 'new town', but the meaning ofthe hal- element in BaJboura is, as yet, unknown. Saycemis-interpreted the patronymic as a second place-name'from Aboos', but Exaboas seems to be a local name andis listed as such by Zgusta (340-1). Roben (Et. anat.366-7) was uncertain whether the personal name of thebrother of Dioskourides, Keraias, should be regarded asPisidian because, although it is found in a number of

27

other inscriptions from the Kibyratis, it is also found inthe Greek city of Colophon. Zgusta (580-2) certainlyconsidered the name to be Anatolian.

The spelling of Dioskourides' rank of standard-bearer,0l1j.160+oPO(;, is perhaps of some chronologicalsignificance. The standard spelling in Ptolemaicdocwnents is aTj~J.04lopol;. The same spelling as thatoccwri.ng on the stele of Dioskourides is found in theearliest dateable occurrence of the rank in Ptolemaicdocuments, which has already been mentioned. Koraxson of Dionysios is named as a O'Tl~O+Opol; in theregiment of Pasines at Hennopolis Magna in 143 BC(Pros. Ptol. 2385). Other occurrences of this fonn ofspelling are nol dated, and we have an insufficient sampleofmaterial to enable us to decide whether we are dealingwith a shift in spelling over time, or whether we aredealing with variant forms of spelling withoutchronological significance. Nevertheless it is possible toregard the spelling ofDioskourides' rank as a possibleindication ofa mid-second century dale.

Many features of the IXlse, weapons and equipment onthe Slele of Dioskourides are comparable to those on thestele of Saenas, and so have already been dealt with.The helmet appears to be of the same type. Even on thisstele, where the helmet is shown. much more clearly, it isimp:>ssible to decide whether the brim of the helmet isstraight, or has two indentations and a curved sectionover the ears, like a Boeotian helmet (cf. Vclkmar VcnGraeve, Ver Alexander Sarkophag und seine Werkstatt(1970) p. 89 n. 47). The helmet also has the same spiralpainted on it. Bar-Kochva thought this 'snail' to be adecoration painted on the helmet. The sword andscabbard can be seen much more clearly. The tunic isdistinctly crimson in colour, and the boots are blue-greywith reddish-brown laces. Unlike Saettas, who carries ape/tl, Dioskourides carries a thureos. Bar-Kochvadescribes this shield as being half light grey and halfwhite, with a brown. and light green spine and umbo anda reddish rim. These nuances of colour arc surely theartistic rendition ofshadow and shadingon a white shieldwith bronze filtings.

The fact that Dioskourides carries a thureos is a liltlepuzzling as one would have expecled him to have thesame helmet of'Sidon Type A' as the other 'Romanized'infantry on the stelai. One wonders, therefore, asDioskourides is a standard-bearer, if in this case thehelmet is a badge of rank. Curiously, Dioskourides doesnot carry a standard, and one wonders whether theHellenistic armies had simply taken over the name of

28

the rank from the Roman army, but not the practice ofcarrying standards. We might compare the word ensignin modem usage. There might be some evidence forstandards physically being carried in a funerary epigramwhich has been recovered from Egypt (Etienne BemanJ,Inscriptions metriquesde I 'Egypleg~mo;ne (1969)p. 50). One Ptolemaios had served in a Macedonianregiment as a standard-bearer and as ahlgemon at times.He had fought as a bold warrior or speannan '"with hisstandard-bearer's staff' (cJTu.w+opan Ka.J.UXKl). He alsotells us that he had previously served as a gyrnnasiarch.

18) Second Stele without inscriptioD (platefigurella).

lalabert no. 6.

This loculus slab is painted in two registers. Above twowarriors are shown shaking hands. All lalabert couldmake oUI, on account of the recent deterioration of thesurface, was brown flesh and some scraps of yenowclothing. We would perhaps be justified, on the basis ofthese scraps, in adding yellow to our tally of regimentaldistinguishing tunic colours for the 'Romanized' infannyregiments. It is possible, however, that these scraps ofyellow noticed by lalabert were patches ofshading on awhite: garment. On the bottom register a warrior is shownturned to the: right. He wears a white tunic and cloakand carries the thureos shield of a regiment of'Romanizc:d' infanuy. Presumably ",-e are dealing witha new regiment, which used the regimental colour white:.The helmet is nol absolutely clear in the tiny photograph,but it seems to be of the standard 'Sidon 'JYpe A' shape.The tall plume was red. lalabert tells us the 'Weapons areyellow. Presumably the thureos is white with yellow usedto indicate shading and contours.

Stelai 19J has been used for Plate 12:

19) Stele of Euno.!ltideS.!lOD of Nikanor, a Perrbaibian(pllItefigure 12a).

Mcndel 108.

Euvo(al«.ll~Q

NlKa.[VOpo(Q!ll:[pp)a.·[P]o[Q

Eunostidesson of Nikanor,a Perrhaibian.

The reading ofEunostides is not secure. Jalabert saw thestele first. and restored Eunostides rather than Eunostoswithout hesitation, because he saw a vertical hasta tothe right of the tau. Macridy Bey, however, restoredEunostos (in the genitive) which does, it must be said,fit the available space better. He also read the ethnic inthe genitive. which is clear in his autograph copy of theinscription. Jalabert's reading has generally beenaccepted, and so has been given here. Friedrich Stahlin(Dos HeJlenische Thessa/ien (1924) p. 8 n. 3) firstsuggested that our Eunostides son of Nikanor buried inSidon was probably the son of Nikanor son of EunostosofGonnoi, mentioned in an inscription dating to aroundthe second halfofthe third century (Bruno Helly, Gonnoi//(1973) no. 232). Gonnoi was one ofthe principal citiesof Perrbaibia. an outlying district of Thessaly lying onthe Macedonian border. Eunostos is a personal name ofBoeotian origin which had presumably spread thoughclose personal contact between important Perrhaibian andBoeotian families. It is found in another inscription fromGonnoi, but nowhere else in Perrhaibia. It would bereasonable to conclude, therefore. that Eunostides did infact belong to the significant family from Gonnoi, thoughthe precise family relationship between him and theearlier Eunostos must remain uncertain.

Eunostides uses the ethnic 'Perrhaibian' on histombstone, rather than 'Gonneus'. This is, at first sight,peculiar. Although we have too little epigraphicevidenceto be absolutely certain on the maner (Launey p. 218 n.1), it seems that the cOmic 'Perrhaibian' was only usedfor the short period oftime during which the PerrhaibianLeague was in existence. The Perrhaibian League wasestablished by a declaration of Flamininus made duringthe Isthmian Games of 196 BC (Livy 33.32.S), andexisted down to 146 BC or shortly after, when it wasannexed by the Thessalian League in the wake of the'Revolt of Andriskos'; the Fourth Macedonian War (cf.H.Kramolisch in B.Helly (ed.), La Thessalie (1979) p.210·11). We know that the revolt spread into Thessaly.Even though we have no information as to how it affectedthe cities ofthe Perrhaibian League, it is highly probablethat the caval!)' of the League, to which Eunostidesbelonged, remained loyal to Rome.

Eunostides' groom holds his weapons, a pair of spearsand a square shield in lhe shapeofa conventional thureosshield with the top and bottom cut off. These are lheweapons of a 'Tarentine' cavalryman. We know fromepigraphic evidence that the caval!)' of the ThessalianLeague was commanded by a hipparch and a tarantinarch(Luigi Moretti, Iscrizioni Storiche EI/enistiche lJ (1975)130~ IQ ix (2) 509). This stele indicates that the cavalry

of the Perrhaibian League included a regiment of'Tarentines' too. The stele is quite heavily damaged,nevertheless lhe main details ofdress can be worked outwith reasonable acewacy. Eunostides wears riding bootsand a helmet on his head. The latter appears to be of'Sidon 1)'pe A', though one cannot be absolutely certain.The cloak is much bigger than the white cloaks worn bythe infantrymen on the other stelai, it is red, and it is ofa different shape. It seems to be a cloak of '1bessalian'type, a long oblong ofcloth. decorated on the inside edgeall the way round with a white harder. The tunic is alsored, and what could be a white border can be seen justabove the knee. In the plate the tunic has been given awhile border at the bottom, and also at the bottom of thesleeve, though this last detail is completely speculative.The groom also wears a tunic, and a horizontal linecutting his head perhaps indicates a head-band.

The final military defeat of Andriskos at Pydna in 148would have freed the caval!)' of the Perrhaibian Leagueto enler Ptolemaic service. They could, therefore, havejoined the Ptolemaic army in time to participate in thesecond intervention of 147·14S. The Perrhaibian troopswould have been sent, presumably, in accordance with atreaty ofalliance pledging reciprocal military aid in timeof war. There is no evidence that Philometor had sentany troops to the aid ofthe Pen:haibians during the RevoltHe may, however, have sent out military equipment andperhaps money in lieu of manpower to help them.. Forexample in 188 BC his father Ptolemy V Epiphanes hadexchanged oaths of alliance with an embassy, whichincluded Lycortas father ofPolybios. sent by theAchaeanLeague to Alexandria, and had sent the League 6,000bronze shields for peltasts and 200 talents ofcoined gold(polyb. 22.9.3). In this case the 'Sidon 1YPe A' helmetworn by Eunostides could have been one of a batch ofhelmets sent out by Philometor to equip the forces of theLeague. The square 'cut-off' thureos used by Eunostidesmay have been made in Egypt too. The square caval!)'shield was ultimately of ScythISaka origin, but came tothe eastern Mediterranean through the Achaemenids.Square cavalry shields of this type are reasonablycommon in Egypt. For example a Graeco-Egyptianterracotta model ofa shield exists in the British Museum(1843.5-7.1054), which is ofthe same type as that carriedby Eunostidcs' groom. We have no evidence for the'square' thureos in the Hellenistic period outside Egypt,so the shields and other weapons used by the cavalry ofthe Perrhaibian League may have been supplied byPhilometor too. Presumably they would have beensupplied with horses upon disemarkment, and would nothave brought their own mounts all the way from Greece.

29

The following stelai have not been used directly in therolour plates:

(101 Stele of a Warrior from (?OroaJnda.

]alaben no. 2; Macridy Bey p. 553-4 no. 8.

[1 Opoa.)v8E[CllV'O -n}oI...£[l-rEUIJ'1)[1EPJ.1O"-]aov 6.[TlJ.LT).)ploo

[.o]v ao[.Cllv) -nOA.l'tTlV[XPTl0}te x[a]lpE:.

Thepolileuma of the [?Oroan}deans,(erected this stele) 10 (?HermoIJaos son of Demelrios

onc of their own citizens,Good man, farewelll

The stele was in a very JXlOr rondition when it was dugup. and it was left at Sidon. The restoration of theinscriplion presents us with a number of problems. Inthe first line a number of Anatolian city ethnics endingin -inda or -anda rould be restored, such as Arycanda,Isinda etc.. Most of these cities lie in either Pisidia orCarla. t have chosen a Pisidian city exempli gratia forthis restoration. In line 3 I have followed Jalabert'sresloration, in which he assumes a mistaken reading ofH for N on his own pan, rather than Macridy Bey'srestoration of [nl0'\8]Tl which causes gramaticaldifficullies. I have retained Macridy Bey's restoration of(n]oJ..e[l'tUJ.LCXl in me first line, ramer than Jalabert's[n]oA.\.[eulJ'1) as the epsilan is quile clear in MacridyBey's autograph ropy of the lettering. Having said this,the restoration of politeuma in either form is hardlyinevitable. Even the first name of the deceased cannotbe restored with any conviction, as the restoration(?Hennol)aos seems too long. We move away from thisdamaged inscription wim relief.

The stele shows a soldier striding towards the right.According to Jalaben his left arm is covered with a roundshield, coloured red (on the inside?), and in his righthand he holds a long (7) lance whose triangular pointcan be made out stretching beyond the shield. The lanceis described as being dark yellow in colour, whichpresumably means the yellowish-brown of wood. Nothingremained ofthe helmet but for the red plume. The blood­red tunic is low-necked wilh short sleeves, gamered atme waist and stretching down to mid-thigh. The soldieralso wears boots with the laces stretching out behind. Itwould, I think. be reasonable 10 assume that the deceasedbelonged to a regiment of peltasts like Saettas, indeedperhaps to the same regiment, though we cannot be

30

certain because the shield cannot be made out in thephotograph. The pholograph is not clear enough 10 permita reconstruction painting.

(11J Stele of Aristeidas, a Lakedaimoniaa fromG)'thion.

Jalaben no. 5; Mendel p. 552-3 no. 5.

Apu:ttt15(at;) APlcn(&tOOU}AlXK&oo'\J.1OvlOl,; [a1t)o

roeuoo 0\ ~tA.[Ol Kat 0'0]OKT)VO\ AAeSCll\l [K]al

T",,,p"&<L; IXP'1=1xalpE.

Aristeidas son of Aristeides,a Lakedaimonian from Gytheion.

His friends and tent­companions A1exon and

Tetartidas (erected this). Good manfarewellr

This stele was already heavily damaged when it wasexamined by Jalabert and Macridy Bey, and it was left atSidon. No photograph of it survives. Jalabert mentionsthat of the figure of the warrior nothing remained butfor two red plumes, a lance, and part of a yeUow shield.If it was genuinely yellow, then Arisleides may havebelonged to a regiment of peltasts or light infantry.Alternatively the yeUow on the shield observedby JaIabc:ncould have been shading on a white thureos, in whichcase Aristeides would have belonged to a 'Romanized'infantry regiment

As in the case ofSaettas from Tennessos 'nearOinoanda',the ethnic Aristeides uses, 'Lakedaimonian fromGythion', is of possible chronological significance.Jalabcrt (p. 15) argued that in about 195 BC, the Romangeneral Flamininus seems to have forced me tyrant NabisofSparta to recognize the independence oCme Lakoniancities, including Gythion, which had fonnerly been underSpartan domination. These ",-ere, seemingly, organizedinto a 'League ofthe Lakonians' which was placed underme protection of me Achaean League. Consequently,Jalabert continued, the ethnic 'Lakedaimonian fromGythion' could not havebeen used before 195. HoWC\'ef,in the first place it is not certain that the League wascreated as early as 195, an alternative date might be 146following me dissolution of the Achaean League ( PaulCartJedge & Antony Spawforth, Hellenistic and RomanSparta. A Tale of1Wo Cities (1989) p. 77, cf. p. 100).Bikerman (p. 89 n. I) also stated very finnly that there

is absolutely no reason why the ethnic 'Lakedaimonianfrom Gythion' may not have been in use before theestablishment of the League ofthe Lakonians. The ethnicone would expect to be used by an inhabitant ofGythionbefore the establishment of the League is, however,'Gytheian' (f'o8w1:TtO. without further qualification.Consequently, there may well be some substance inJalabert's suggestion, but, given the disputed date, andthe lack of comparable information for the ethnic,certainty in Utis maner eludes us.

Tetartidas, a name fOWld in Messenia, is a typically Greekname, given to someone born on the fourth day of themonth, similar to the names Tetartos at Tegea, andTetartion at Sparta noted by Friedrich Bechtel (DieHisforischen Personennamen des Griechischen (1917)p. 521). Jalabert first suggested, on the basis of this name,that the two 'friends and tent-companions' named in theinscription may have been Lakedaimonians as well asAristeides himself, a conclusion with which Robertagreed (OMS I p. 187). The logical inference 10 makefrom Utis might be that the entire regiment to whichAristeides belonged was composed of Lakedaimonians.Perhaps, then, Aristeides and the others belonged to aregiment supplied to the Ptolemiac anny by the Leagueof the Lakonians by virtue of a treaty of alliance. Thereference to 'tent-companions' (syskenoi) is interesting.It would be tempting to suggest that this lerm mightperhaps supply evidence for the existence of the Roman'tent·party', or contuburnium, within the Ptolemaic army.

(12) Stele of Stomphias son of ApolloDides, a Carianfrom Euromos.

Jalabert no. 4; Macridy Bey p. 553 no. 6.

I[1:}oJ.l.$uxl:: A1tOAA.rovlOOOEoproJ.l.8uS

XPTJms XalpE.

Stomphias son of ApollonidesofEuromos.

Good man, farewell!

The city ofEuromos was in Caria. This stele was one ofthe first to be found. and was considerably damaged. 11was left in Sidon, and no photograph of il survives.Jalabert mentions that the main field of the stele showeda soldier frontally, but he could only make out theyellowish shaft and the greenish point of a spear, andthe strap-work of sandals on the feet.

(13} Stele erecled by Ihe Politeuma of the Kaunian..

Macridy Bey p. 549 no. A.

Ko.ovtrov 'to 1tOAtttOJ.l.lX I1t[1tOAO'tOv7]Knl A1tOAJ..cilvwTJv EPJ.l.lX{yopa.]ZTtVCllV<X ZTJVCllVCX:; [1:0V oow<X]

ZTJVCllVCX:; ImOO:llX>v Ae[TJvo&lpoo7]EpJ.l.CIlV<XK't<X Ap1:£~lO[CllpoO]

Tool; <XU1:CllV [1tO]Al't[uQ.

The politeuma of the Kaunians to Hip[polutos?]and Apollonides sons ofHennagoras,

Zenon son ofZenon, [name lost]son ofZenon, Isidoros son of Ath[enodoros?]

Hennonax son of Artemidoros,their fellow citizens.

This stele was left in Sidon and has not survived. Norhas any photograph. The city ofKaunos lies in Caria onthe eastern border with Lycia. The po/iteuma of theKaunians has been discussed by Perdrizet (Rev. arch.1899, 2 pp. 42-48). Macridy Bey tells us that the fieldshowed two warriors armed with large Greek helmetswith plumes and with shields. One of them held aweapon, seemingly a lance. One suspects that a scenesimilar to that painted on Stele [1] in our catalogue,showing two 'Romanized' infanUymen shaking hands,lies behind this vague and perfunctory description.

(14) Stele of [?Her]molukos.

Jalabert no. I; Macridy Bey p. 554 no. 9.

[ ..•...EpJJ.l.OAOKOO( .... )v8lVTt Tt"f&J.l.Ov(0. 'CllV] Xtrov XPTtO"U:

Xo.lpe.

[name lost} son of Hennolukosof [....]nthos, commander[of the] Cruots. Good man

farewelll

The reading and interpretation of this heavily damagedinscription is much disputed. The restoration offeredabove, without any confidence, is based. on one suggestedby Jalabert which he himselfrejccted. Launey (p. 615 n.6) suggested that the last line and a half had been readand restored incorrectly by Jalabert and Macridy Bey.He proposed a restoration ofTJ[yJ;J.l.O[Vo.] I [E1t <xv]8prov(hegemon ep 'andr6n). He further suggested that the end

3/

ofthe ethnic ofthe deceased could be found in the lettersNeIN orNctlIN surviving in the second line. Whilst thisis a most attractive restoration, it cannot be easilyreconciled with the autograph copy of the damagedlettering reproduced by Macridy Bey. If lalabert'ssuggested restoration is along the right lines, the factthat a regiment of Chiots were to be found in Ptolemaicservice at this time should not come as too much of asurprise. An inscription left by the ganison of Cyprusearly on in the reign of Euergetes, if correctly restored,mentions troops from Keos stationed on the island(Opuscu/aAtheniensia I (1953) p. 133 no. 3). This smallCycladic island is famed more for the production ofacademics and writers during the Hellenistic period,rather than mercenaries.

(IS) Stele of Zenon of Rhodiapolis.

Jalabert no. 9~ Macridy Bey p. 554 no. 10.

(ZT\}v(6)V ZT\VCilV]oI;,[P]OO[""]0"'''11;

Zenon son of Zenonof Rhodiapolis.

The ethnic, of the Lycian dry ofRhodiapolis, is certain,but the restoration of the personal name and patronymicin the inscription is, obviously, somewhat insecure.Nevertheless the restoration fits the space and thesurviving fragments of letters very well. The stele wasleft in Sidon and has now disappeared, but a photographdid survive and was published by Macridy Bey. Jalabendescribes the figure ofthe warrior in the following tenus.The warrior is turned slightly to the left. He carries alance over his shoulder and an oval thureos on his leftarm. On his head he wears a tall helmet with a horse·hair plume. Jalabert describes the weapons as yellow.Presumably we should interprel this as meaning that thehelmel is bronze, but the thureos is white with yellowtoning to indicale shape and shadow. He wears a redtunic and a long cloak reaching to the back of the knee.Jalaben describes this cloak as being yellow, bul, again,I feel he has probably chosen to describe the 'standardissue' white cloak, with its yellow modelling and shading,as yellow. He wears strap-work sandals which stre:lch uphalf way to the knee. This figure, then, appears to be a'Romanized' infantryman ofexactly the same type as onStele (2] in our catalogue. Consequently a reconstructionpainting which \\-'Quld contibule no new infonnation hasnol been included.

32

[16J Stele of [MJldepa[-J.

Jalaben no. 3; Macridy Bey p. 554 no. 11.

[Aa)dTl1to.-octl\.A.l1nlOO-­

[XP'l=JlCll[pE].

AskIepa[... Json of Philip, [ethnic lost]

Good man,farewelll

The stele was left in Sidon. It is now lost and nophotograph survives. On the stele were painted twosoldiers facing and stretching out their hands to eachother. They wore yellow helmets with red plumes, largeoval shields which laIabert describes as yellow. Onceagain, I Utink it is probable that they were white withyellow used for modelling and shading. The rest of thepicture was practically gone by the time JaJaben observedthis tombstone. It was one of those which had been leftoul in the fields rather than being brought into thecaravan-semi. He comments that all else which could bemade out of the two soldiers was "a vague silhouette: thecolours, washed away by the rains, comes off on yourfingers". From the description he has given, however, itseems quite probable that the two soldiers shown on thisstele were 'Romanized' infantrymen too. The fact that1\\'0 figures are shown in the reliefternpts one to speculatethat two deceased persons might have been mentionedin the epitaph. Space for some 11 or 12 teners exists inthe gap in the first line; too much for a single name to berestored.

117) Third Unioscribed Stele.

Macridy Bey p. 554-5 no. 12.

A third uninscribed stele has survived. It was decoratedin two registers, like Stele 18) in the catalogue. In theupper register a warrior extends his hand to bid adieu toanother person. Below a warrior is shown turned to theleft. his right hand extended, with an oval shield and alance in his left hand. He would seem, therefore. to be asoldierofyel another'Romanized' regiment. Thecol.oursare DOl given.

Conclusions.

The arguments for a terminus post quem given byTenncssos Minor and the League of the Lakonians arenot amclusive, but they are persuasive, and if correctshould give a terminuspost quem of 195 BC. The firmestindication of the date of this group of tombstones is therank ofstandard-bearer which Dioskourides holds. Thisrankonlyexisted in either the Seleucid orPtolemaicannyafter the 160s, which, in my view, gives the firmestterminus post quem to this group of material. If mysuggestion concerning the ethnic 'Perrhaibian' is alsocorrect. then the dates narrow further as a terminus antequem of about 145 BC appears. During this period themajorily of the areas of Anatolia from which the troopsburied at Sidon came, if not independent, were underAttalid control. It is difficult to see under whatcircumstances the Seleucid monarchs could haverecruited these troops. For much ofthis period the Attalidand Seleucid kings were at daggers drawn. The tenns ofthe Treaty of Apameia forbidding recruitment ofmercenaries west of the Taurus might be benl, fore.xample when Antiochus IV was 'lent' a regiment ofMysians, but this only happened occasionaly and underpeculiar circumstances. The Seleucid monarchs wouldcertainly not have been able to conclude militaty alliances~ith Pisidian cities, which are attested in the inscriptionspainted on the stelai.

It is therefore unlikely that the s1elai were deposited bytroops in Seleucid service. If the troops were Ptolemaic,then only two dates are possible within the stated range;the dubious intervention ofa Ptolemaic annycommandedby Galaisles in support of Alexander Balas in 1SO, andthe second intervention ofPhilometor in the years 147­145. We are not told that garrisons were left in any ofthe cities which the anny passed through in ISO, but weare specifically told (1 Mace. 11.3) that garrisons wereleft in the cities by Philometor during the intervention of147·145. Therefore the latter date is the one 10 beprefcrred, and this would allow sufficient time for thePerrhaibian allied cavalry to be sent following the defeaton Andronikos in 148.

A Ptolemaic interpretation "'iould certainly explain whythe politeumata appear in the inscriptions, though it isah',ays possible that Seleucid poJiteumata existed, so thisis not a firm argumenL It would also explain why theO\"trwhelming majorily of those troops serving in the'Romanized' infantry units of the Sidon garrison,presumably mercenaries, were recruited in Anatolia ThePtolemics had partirolarlyclose relations with the Lycian

Leaguc, and this is why we find so many Lycians servingin the Cyprus garrison and in the Sidon garrison too.Caria and Lydia were, however, incorporated within theAttalid Kingdom at this period, and we may perhapsconclude that Philometor was allowed to recruit thereduring the period when the Ptolemaic and Attalidkingdoms had entered into a coalition to dethroneDemetrius I and replace him with Alexander Balas. Ihave suggested that although symmachic alliances areonly attested in the inscriptions belonging to the stelaifor two Pisidian cities, it may be the case that Philometorhad also contracted similar alliances with the Perrhaibianand Lakonian leagues. Ifso, this suggests that Ptolemaicdiplomatic activily in Greece during this period was morewidespread than has previously been suspected.

Finally, it might be worth recapitulating some of theprincipal points covered in this appendix concerning'Romanizcd' equipment. The fact that only one out ofthe nine or so representations of 'Romanized' infantryshown on the s1elai wears a cuirass seems a little strange,but is most probably explained as sheer coincidence. Itcan, however, be expained by the suggestion that theydid not. in the main, wear their heavy annour whenperforminggarrison duty, and so are not painted wearingit. It may also have been the case that not all maniples inthe regiment wore the mail cuirass in the Roman andPtolemaic armies alike. Any number offaetors may haveled to the imbalance betv..een armoured and u.narmou.redinfantrymen being shown in the surviving stelai. Whatis important is that one of the soldiers does wear a mailcuirass. Secondly, none of the 'Romanized' soldiersshown on the s1e1ai have replaced their spears withSpanish swords andpiJa. This can perhaps be explainedif we believe that the Hellenistic kingdoms did not yethave the steel technology necessary to produce anentirelyreliable blade. Principal reliance, therefore, continuedto be placed in the fighting-spear - which in these reliefsis the same size as the Roman hasta. Likewise, the thureosshields are not as big as we would have expected; theyan; rather, exactly the same size as those thureos shieldswhich had been in use throughout the Hellenistic worldduring the latc third century. What one has to bear inmind, I think, is that we are not looking at Ptolemaictroops wearing Roman equipment, \\'C are looking atPtolemaic troops wearing a Ptolemaic version ofRomanequipment.

33

Colour Photo 1 ~ Detail from SitJon Stele 111- Three "'arriors on an uninscl"ibetJ stele

•,

~ ,•.'•

•} • ~• ":.. ..... ..

9a-<: Anonymous warriors 11)9d Hekataios (2)

Plate 9 - Ptolernalc 'ROllullllzed' Inrnntry. Based on Sidon Slclai 11) and (2),

c

Colour Photo 2 - Dctllil from Sidon Slcle (3) - The Slcle of Salmas

• t

a

lOa Salmas [3]lOb Kortadis 14JIOc Diodotos the Cretan [5]IOd Servant to Diodotos [5]

c

Plate 10 - Ptolemaic 'Romanizcd' and Light Infantry. Based on Sidon Stclai [3j, (41 and l5J.

Colour Photo 3 - Detail from SidoD Stele 171- The Stele of Dioskourides of Balboura

•

' .•

•

-

Ila Anonymoos lmrrior (SJlib Dioskouridcs (1)lle Satllas 16)

b

•c

Plate 11 - ptolemaic IRomanizcd' and Allied Inranlry. Based on Sido" Stelai 161, (7) and 18).

Parade at Alexandria

Parade at Alexandria

/ "

~ ~ .:.~2))(

I1 \

Colour Photo 4 ~ Detail from Sidon Stde (9) - The Stclc of Euno!ltldc!l !Ion of Nikanor, a Pcrrhaiblan

a

Plate 12 - Cavalry of the Pcrrhnibian League. Based 011 Sidoll Side J9J

b c

123 EunOSlides 19J12b Groom (9)12c 'Tarentine' CavaJI)'lIl,mI9J

65 Sidon Stele [I] and detail

66 Sidon Stde [2] and detail

67 Sidon Stele [3] and detail

•

68 Sidon Stele [4] and detail

69 Sidon Slele [51

70 Sidon Stele 16J and detail

71 Sidon Side [7] and delail

72 S;don Stele [8)

73Sidon Slele [9] and detail

74 Sidon Stele (10]

75 Sidon Stele [15]

•

80

83

89

92

98

103

101

100

102

105

106107

104

109

110

108

113 112

114• J

",

115

116

119

118

117

120

121

123

,

.•

122

124

126

128

129

131

132

133

135

COWUR PHOTOIPLATE DESCRIPTIONS

The ~our plates follow scquentially from \\llume 1, so thefirst IS Plate 9. The exception 10 Ihis is the central double­page-spread colour plate which has deliberately been leftunnumbered. There are no colour photos (as opposed to platesor peintings) in 'hIume 1, so the first in this volume is ColourPhoto 1. For bn:vily and, hopefully, elegance, the termPlatcfigure has been adopted. For example. P1atdigure lOameans Figure a in Plate 10. Thus the Iron Figure v.ill meanonly • black: & white figure.

Colour Photo 1 ~ Detail from SidoD Stele 11)A source for Plate 9

Detail showing the three warriors on an uninscribcd stele.~ l~-shaped spear-head is shown, albeit faintly, onlyIn thiS SIde. It seems to be only about five or six incheslo~g, halflhis length being taken up by the socket, madeor Iron and leaf-shaped. This spear can best be comparedto the Roman has/a, ralher than 10 the Macedoniansarissa, in its total length and in the size of its head.(photo: Istanbul Archaeological Museum).

Plate 9 - Ptolemaic 'Romanized' Infantry,Based on Sidon Stelai [11 and (2).

The four figures in this plate depict Ptolemaic'Romanized' infantrymen suuioned in the Sidon garrisonduring the years 147-145 BC. Platefigures 9a-e are basedon Stele (I) and Platefigure 9d is based on Stele (2).The figures show almost complete uniformity in dressand equipment, except for the differing nmic colours andthe different shape of the flange attached to the umbo ofthe shield. The significance of Ihese differences isunknown, but they could indicate that Ihe individuals~longed to different regiments, or, less probably, todifferent semaiai (maniples) of the same regiment. Notethe helmets of 'Sidon Type A'. The while cloaks, andperhaps even the white shields, could be 'badges'indicaling that the units belonged to the Ptolemaic army.The spears held by all these figures seem to be about sixand a halffect tall. In most cases, therefore, the heads ofthe spears project beyond the field of the painting andare not shown on the stelai. The spearhead is faintlyshown on the slele for Plateligure 9a, however, and sohas been restored for all figures accordingly. It is nOIclear from the representations whether the wooden spearshaft ends in a small iron bun or is left plain. The bootson alllhese figures are unclear except on Stcle (2), andso have been restored accordingly. The soldiers shakehands beneath the weloome shade afforded by a grove ofCedars of Lebanon.

Colour Photo 2 - Detail from SidoD Stele (3)A source for Plate 10.

Detail from the Stele of Salmas showing the deceased.(pholo: Istanbul Archaeological Museum).

Plate 10 -Ptolemaic 'Romanized' and Light Infantry.Based on Sidon Stew IJ[, [4J and [5J.

The first two figures shown on this plate also showinfantrymen from 'Romanized' units. P1atefigu~ 10.is based on Stele [3], and shows an infantryman in fullpanoply, equipped with a mail cuirass 'in the Romanmanner'. Platefigure lOb is based on Stele [4] and showsan infantryman from a 'Romanizcd' regimenl but withouta mail cuirass. It is possible that twooul of the six slmoiaiin each regiment were more lightly equipped than theothers, after the fashion of the Roman has/a/I or thatthe heavy armour was not worn whilst performinggarrison duty.Platefigu~ IOC is based on Stele [5]. and shows a Cretanbelonging to a unit of light infantry together with hisservant. The oolours are reasonably secure except for therim of the shield, which has been restored in red, butwhich may have been painted in any dark colour. Theshield was painted in yellow, which could bec:ithermeant10 represent a rather largebronzepe/tl, or, more probablya leather~vc:red shield: the Greek equivalent of theRoman panna. This Cretan is. therefore, the equivalentofthe Roman ve/es.lalabert describes the servant as bare­headed, but he has been restored wearing a Cretan twban.Platefigure IOd is based on Stele (5).The background of this plate is based on a reconstructiondrawing, made by Niemann, of the Round Towers of thefortifications of Perge as seen from the Main Gate(K.Lanckoronski, G.Niemann & E.Petersen, S/ddtePamphy/iens und Pisidiens J (1890) p. 61 fig. 48). Thelate Hellenistic period saw developments in fortificationswhich can be compared to the development of the 'CarnatTrace' and ofcascmated artillery fortifications at the endof the 18th century and beyond. Massive fortificationsdesigned 10 withstand heavy artillery projectiles, we~replaced with tall casemated walls, in which long-rangeartillery could be concentrated. It was hoped that thisconcentration, at the point the enemy intended to startoperations, would either prevent him from establishinghis batteries at a useful range in the first place, or if hedid, il would provide a huge counter-battery.

71

Colour Photo 3 - Detail from SidoD Stele [7]A source for Plate 11.

Detail from the Stele ofDioskourides ofBalboura.(photo: Istanbul Archaeological Museum).

Plate 11- Ptolemak 'Romanized' and AJlied Infantry.Based on Sidon Stelai [6], {7] and [8].

Plalefigure Ue, based on Stele [6], the stele of thePisidian Sat!ttas ofTennessos Minor, shows a regimentof Pisidian pellasts in Ptolemaic service. The stele hasbeen heavily damaged around the shield, and it isWlccrtain whether the shield is plain bronze or whetherthere may have been some design in the ccntre. Thoughsupplied for service in the Ptolemaic anny by virtue ofatreaty ofalliance (symmachia) between Philomctor andvarious of the cities-slates of Pisidia, the equipmentSacttas uses was probably issued to him in Egypt beforethe startof the campaign, rather than being brought withhim from Pisidia. Platefigure llb, which is based onStele [7], the stele of Dioskourides, shows a standard­bearer from a Pisidian regiment of ,Romanized' infantryagain supplied to the Ptolemaic anny by virtue ofa treatyof alliance. Plalefigure 11a, based on Stele [8J, ananonymous stele from Sidon, shows an infantryman froma Ptolemaic 'Romanized' regiment. This regiment worea white tunic as its distinguishing mark. The backgrOWldshows the wooded mountains of Pisidia.

Colour Photo 4 - Detail from Sidoo Stele [9JA source (or Plate 12.

Detail from the Stele of Eunostides son of Nikanor, aPerrhaibian. (photo: Istanbul Museum).

Plate 12 - Cavalry of the Perrhaibiao League.Based 00 Sidon Stele [9]

Platefigure Ua represents Eunostides the Pcrrhaibianand Platefigure 12b represents his groom. Due todamage on Stele(9J, particularly to the boots, many ofthe minor dctails of this reconstruction are not secure.The boots seem to be solid leather rather than stratrwork,with laces concealed in a pocket at the front of the bootbut reaching much higher up the leg to the calf, befittingcavalry soldiers. Platefigure 12e depicts a soldierequipped as a 'Tarcntine'. In the background a squadpractises the drill of throwing the first spear, thenchanging hands with the second ready for the charge.The scenery represents the hills east of the river Jordan.

72

Colour Double-page Spread

This plate depicts a parade at Alexandria and isincluded essentially to show that not all soldiers in aPtolemaic army would be identical to the Sidonmercenaries and shows what some of the more exotictypes would have looked like. The reconstructions are,perforce, not as precise as the Sidon ones.On the left can be seen a group ofGalatian mercenaries.Model figurines of such warriors are encounteredreasonably frequently, and traces of blue paint occur ontheir cloaks. It is quite likely that bodiesof such warriorswould present a more unifonn appearance than manyreconstructors have considered likely even if theindividuals are not wearing uniforms in the modemsense. Many figurines are depicted with their right handupon the sword hilt, a pose which seems to occur toooften to be accidental and which we have attempted toreproduce. It will be noticed that one figure wears aHellenistic helmet, examples ofsuch having been foundin a 'Galatian context', for example with the torso of awarrior at Delos now in the National Musewn in Athens.White seems to be the most likely shield colour.In the centre is a body of negro soldiers. These too arereconstructed after figurines (see Figs. 97 - 101).On the right is an elephant, probably a member of thesmall species Loxodonta africana variety cyc/otis, forthere is evidence that the animals used by the Ptolemieswere much smaller than the African Bush elephant.Indeed there is a possibility that as herds dwindled,inbreedingcaused a form ofpygmy creature to be created.The •open' howdah is particularly interesting and is basedon a figurine (see Fig. 123). We have used this plate asan excuse to show this interesting, albeit rare, alternative.It is possible, though, that Ptolemaic howdahs were boxedin, in the way other Hel1enistic ones were (See Volume1, Plate 7). The decoration ofthe elephant's ears and thecaparison design are inspired by the Marissa wallpaintings (Volume 1, Fig. 58). The mahout is based uponthe figure of a negro mahout on another figurine (seeFig. 124). The crew are depicted unarmoured as theymight appear in a parade, even if they were annoured inbatUe (although that is not certain; an unarmoured battlecrew is a possibility). They wear parade garlands upontheir heads.In the right foreground is a high-ranking cavalry officer.This reconstruction is inspired by Figs. 111·113. Thecolours are hypothetical, but in keeping (for examplethe yellow and purple cloak) with the colours used bythe guardsmen of the Macedonians and their successors.The background is loosely based upon famous Romanpaintings, which may have been copied from earlieroriginals, of hunting scenes on the River Nile.

FIGURE CAPTIONSFigs. 65-75. snowSidon moteria£ /he rest cOll"rObomtive ~vide:ncf!

and contrasting maln-inlfor other Ptokmaic troop l)Jlu

Fig. 65. Siden Stele [I]. Uninscribed stele showing threewarriors. The close-up of the warrior on the left showsthe helmet in detail. Note also the leaf·shaped spear­head, which is shown. albeit faintly, only in this stele. Itseems to be only about five or six inches long, half thislength being taken up by the socket, made of iron, andleaf-shaped.. This spear can best be compared to theRoman hasra, rather than to the Macedonian sarissa. inits total length and in the size ofilS head (photos: IstanbulArchaeological Museum).

Fig. 66. SidoD Stclc [2]. Stele ofHekataios, and detail ofthe stele. Despite damage 10 the head, the helmet isclearly of 'SidoD Type A'. (photos: IstanbulArchaeological Museum).

Fig. 67. SidoD Stele [31. Stcle of Salmas, and detailshowing the d~eased (photos: Istanbul ArchaeologicalMuseum).

Fig. 68. Sidon Stele {4]. Stele of Kartadis the Lycian,and detail ofSlele shmfing the deceased (photos: IstanbulArchaeological Museum).

Fig. 69. Sidon Stele [5]. Stele of Diodotos the Cretan.and detail of stele (after Jalaben fig. 3).

Fig. 70. Sidon Stele [6]. Stele of the Pisidian, Sal!ttasson of Trokondas, and detail (photos: IstanbulArchaeological Museum).

Fig. 71. Sidon Stele [7]. Stele of Dioskourides ofBalboura, and detail (photos: IsUtnbul ArchaeologicalMuseum).

Fig. 72. Sidon Stele [8J. Anepigraphie stele (after Jalabertp. 9 fig. 2).

Fig. 73. Sidon Stcle 19}. Stele of Eunostides son ofNikanor, a Pcrrhaibian, and dctail (photos: IstanbulMuseum).

Fig. 7~ Sidon Stcle (10). Steleofa soldier of[70roa]nda(after Jalabert p. 5 fig. I).

Fig. 7S. Sidon Stele [IS). Stele of a Lycian fromRhodiapolis. The figurative representation on this stelewas deliberately damaged with an axe by one of theMuslim locals (after Macridy Bey pI. i, 9).

Fig. 76. Drawingofan Ale.xandrian 'loculus-tomb' (afterRudolf Pagenstecher, Necropolis (1919) p. 143). Thestelai from Sidon probably came from similar. Tomb-­chambers, or 'loculi', branched out laterally from acenual underground passage-way, which is generaUycalled a hypog~um. The loculi 'were individually sealedwith an anificial decorative tombstone covered in stuccoand painted. Most painted stelai ofthe Hellenistic periodare painted in encaustic technique, in which the pigmentis fixed to the stele by hot wax. The local stone fromwhich the Sidon loculus-slabs are made. the local sandylimestone called ramleh, is too coarse to permit thistechnique to be used, however, so these stelai aredecorated wilh painted stucco.

Fig. 77. Painted tombstone of Dionysios the Bithynian,from Alexandria, dating to the second century. Dionysioswears dark brown ankle·high boots, a wreath around hishead, and a dark brown tunic with a vertical stripe downthe middle. His attendant wears a white tunic, a blueitem of headgear, possibly an iron pi/os helmet, andcarries a "yellowish" (presumably white) shield.Dionysius himselfcarries a six·foot fighting spear, whilehis attendant carries a pairofjavelins, which maypossiblybe regarded as a Ptolemaic equivalent of the brace ofRoman pila. (after BlancheR. Brown, Ptolemaic PaintingsandMosoicsandtheAlexandrian Style (1957) p. 28 no. 27,pI. xx, I).

Fig. 78. Funerary stele found in the sea near ltanos andnow in Aghios Nikolaos Museum (BCH lOO (1979) p.727 fig. 339). The coast of eastern Crete has sunk, andthis stele, brought up from lhe sea-bed in fishermen'snets, would originally have come from a cemetery usedby the PlOlemaic garrison stationed at Itanos. Thegarrison was probably re-introduced in 167 andwithdrawn in 145, and the stele dates to this period.Though heavily eroded by the sea, it clearly shows asoldier in Roman equipment (photo: author).

Fig. 79. Dctail ofa fresco from 'The House ofthcDoctor'Pompeii, now in Naples Museum, copying anAlexandrian original of the middle of the second century.Pygmies are shown enacting 'The Judgement ofSolomon'. The pygmy guard standing in front of the kinghas a crimson tunic, cloak and plwne and an iron muscle­cuirass. RusscU Robinson (p. 16) confidently assensthatthis figure wears a Montefortino Type F helmet, but itbetter resembles helmets of 'Sidon 1Jpe A', though itdoes have chcek·pieces. His dress and equipment couldreflect that of the contemporary 'Romanized' Egyptianarmy. The round shield could be a thureos, but is more

73

probably of hoplite type. The soldier standing behindhim has a bronze helmet and hoplite shield with agorgoneion deviee, a yellow cloak and a red plume, whilethe soldier with a cleaver has a bronze muscle-euirassand helmet, a blue tunic and a red plume. (Theodore H.Feder, Grea/ TretJSUlf!sofPompeii &Herculaneum (1978) p.126-7).

Fig. 80. Detail from a fresco once in the Esquiline, butnow in the Vatican Museum. This is one of a series offrescoes showing scenes from the Odyssey, again copyingA1exandrian originals dating to the middle ofthe secondcentury BC. The figure in the cenlre, dressed in a whitetunic, wears a cuirass and a helmet and carries a thureosshield. He presumably represents contemporary militarydress in Alexandria, which was now along Roman lines.(after Frank Brommer, Odysseusdie Ta/en undLeiden desHe/den in Antiker Kunst undUteratur( 1983) pI. 29a).

Fig. 81. Terracotta puppet from Asia Minor now in theLouvre (E 26), dating to the second or third century AD,and probably representing a gladiator. The head doesnot belong to the body, and has been falsely attached inmodern times. It shows a helmet of a type very close to'Sidon Type A' and is presumably Hellenistic in date(Besques, Cat. Louvre llIp. 133, pI. 166 b).

Fig. 82. This terracotta of a seated bearded warrior, 9ems. high, is "':earing a long·slecved lunic, a cloak, anda 'Sidon Type A' helmet (W. Froehner, CollectionJ. Greau.Tenescuiles d'Asie (1886) pp. 64~5).

Fig. 83. Bust of the helmeted head of an unidentifiedHellenistic general or ruler, in the Museo Nazionale,Naples (lnv. 6151). The visor of the helmet has beenbroken offand restored, but the helmet nevertheless bearsstrong resemblances to the 'Sidon Type A' helmet, exceptthat the crest·box has been replaced by three plume·holders. It is possible that this bust could representPhilometor, although suggested identifications of thisking are so hotly contested it would be extremely rash toput forward any such suggestion (Anton Hekler, GreekandRomanPortraits(1912) pI. 71 a).

Figs. 84, 85, 87 & 88. Fragments of an ancient frescofrom Alexandria, in the possession of Dr. LillianMalcove, showing Homeric scenes. Though Late Romanin date, these frescoes probably copy Hellenistic originalsofthe mid-second century. In Fig. 84 the helmet is yellowwith a white creSl~holder and a crimson plume. Thecuirass is faced with white linen decorated in black, witha violet shoulder·guard and a white cloak. In Fig. 85 the

74

warrior wears a blue tunic with a red border around theneck. The cuirass is yellow with a red belt. The helmetand S\\'ord~hilt are white and the shield is yellow. Thefragment shown in Fig. 87 shows two guards standingin front of a wall The one on the left has a red plumeand a )'ellow helmet, and a red shield with a white rimand spine. The one on the right has a blue helmet with awhite crest-holder and a black plume, ayellow tunie anda red shield with a white rim and a black spine. Lesscomplete fragments show a third guard with a whiteshield with a pink rim and a black helmet plume, and afourth with a red shield with a white rim and black spine.A final fragment, Fig. 88, shows a warrior in a beltedred tunie with t\1..O white stripes, a white helmet, and awhite sword (after G.MA Hanfmann, 'New Fragmentsof A1exandrian Wall Painting' inAlessandria e ilmondoellenis/ico-romano, s/udi in onore di Achille Adriani 2(-Srudi e Materiali J, Palenno 1983) tav. xliv, 4; xlv, I;xlv, 2; xlvi, I).

Fig,. 86. Shows a reconstruction ofa soldier, perhaps anofficer, based on a synthesis ofFigs. 84 & 8S.

Figs. 89 & 90. Show two rtCOnstroctions ofsoldiers basedon Figs 87 &: 88 respectively.

Fig. 91. Egyptian terracotta ofan infantryman, wearingtunic, boots and cloak. and armed with a cuirass and a/hureos shield, the umbo and spina of which can onlyjust be made out. Note the right hand resting on the hilt.of the sword, worn on the right side, in the Romanmanner. The diagonal band across the chest is a fold inthe cloak, not abaldrie. (after Wilhelm Weber, K6niglicheMuseen zu Berlin.Die Agyptisch.GriechischenTerrakouen (19 14) abb. 74)

Fig. 92. Reconstruction based on Fig. 91.

Fig. 93. Egyptian terracoua flask moulded into the shapeof an unannoured infantryman. Note the right handresting on the hilt of the sword, worn on the right side,in the Roman manner. The square flanges to the umboarc perhaps indicative of a late, second-century, date.The wreaths worn by both these infantrymen indicatethat they are taking pan in a parade. (after P. Perdrizet,Les/errescuitesgrecquesde I 'Egypte de la CollectionFouque/(1921) no. 381, pl.xciv).

Fig. 94. Reconstruction based on Fig. 93.

Fig. 95. This most interesting terracotta from the Fayoummay give a rough idea of lhe appearance ofan Egyptiannative soldier (machimos) in lhe lale Hellenistic period.The coiffure, head shaved but for a child's hair.lock,indicates that the terracolta shows the Graeco-Egyptiandeity Harpocratcs 'Homs the child', the son of Osirisand Isis, who eventually triumphed over the evil Set(lYphon). He is frequently shown as a child in anns.Crude Graet:o·Egyptian terracottas of this type arcextremely difficult to date. The shield, a Ihureos with topand bottom cut off, places the lerracotta after the secondcentwy BC. Adate around the middle of the first centuryBC might beaJ'Propriate (after P. Perdrizet, Les te17'escuilesgrecquesde I'Egyptede IaCollection Fouquer (1921) p.xxxit).

Fig. 96. Reconstruction based on Fig. 95. The child'shead on the original source has been replaced by anadult's whose hair could beeven shoner than shown here.

Fig. 97. Terracoltaofa Nubian axeman from the Fayown.The Nubian is robed but unshielded and armed with adouble-headed axe of the simple shaft-hole type, withthe shaft projecting be:rond the head (after Paul Perdizet.Les Terres cuites grecques de l'Egypt de la ColllectionFouquet (1921) pI. ci).

Fig. 98, Most Termconas ofNubian warriors show themnaked but for a loin-cloth and bell, anned with an axe.The axe seems to have been the standard weapon of theEthiopian warrior (Strabo 17.1..53-4). A number ofterracottas also show a small shield, ofdouble segmentedshape, with a rim and a boss, presumably made ofleathcr(after Ev. Breccia, Terreeolle figurate greehe e greeo­egiziedelMuseodi Alessandria (1930)pl. 28,4).

Fig. 99. Reconstruction based primarily on Fig. 98. Theaxe was the characteristic weapon of the Ethiopian soldierin Antiquity (Frank M. Snowden, 'Rome and theAethiopian Warrior' D. M. Roblnson Sludies Il (1953)906-917).

Fig. 100. This terr3cotta figure represents a Nubianwarrior perhaps ofa higher social group than the others.The curved blade to the axe is slightly different from theother examples. The figure wears a fringed robe and hecarries a pelte of the Amazonian type (after M.Riostovtzeff, Social and Economic Histary of TheHellenistic World 2 ii (1953».

Fig. 101. Reconstruction based on Fig. 100.

Fig. 102. Graeco-Egyptian terracotta bottle from theFayoum in the shape ofa wreathed Amazon carrying anAmazonian pelte with itsdistinct1y double-scalloped topedge. It is not known whether shields of this type wereever actually used by the army (after Paul Perdrizet, Lesterres cuites grecques de l'Egypte de la CollectionFouquet (1921».

Fig.. 103. Termcotta figurine supposedly showing theGraeco-Egyptian god, Harpocrates (but perhaps showingan Amazon) mounted, clothed in a tunic and holding aplaltera in the right hand from which a libation is beingpoured. Statues oC Harpocrates are quite common. hesometimes rides animals other than horses.

Fig.. 104. Nubian cavalryman from Museum fUr Kwmund Gewcrbe Hamburg (see Donald M. Bailey. Minerva,MaylJune 95. Gaulish and Nubian Mercenaries inPtolemaic Egypt. p. 37).

Fig. 105. Horseman from the painted tomb fron Marissain Idumaea. Although probably 3rd century the horseequipment is probably a fair representation oCthat ofthe2nd century as ",'ell.

Fig. 106. Temcotta of the Egyptian god Harpocratesequipped as a 'Tarentine'. He is naked except for hiscloak, but he earries a square shield with a wide rim anda large curved dagger (cf. fig. C24). This example is inManchester Museum (7871); it is from Egypl, measures13.5 by 9.S ems., and was donated in 1925 by W. SharpOgden.

Fig, 107. Another figure oCtheEgyptian godHarpocratesequipped as a 'Tarentine'. This example is published inEv. Breccia, Alexandria ad Aegyprum. A Guide to theAncient and Modern town, and fO Its Graeco-RomanMuseum (1922) p. 264 fig. 171. Similar examples appearin Wilhehn Weber, KOnigllche Museen zu Berlin. DieAgypliseh-Griechischen Terrakotten (1914) pI. 8, nos.90-92.

Fig. 108. Wall-paintingCrom the so-called Mustafa PashaTomb i in Alexandria, dating to the early third centuryBC, showing three Graeco·Macedonian cavalrymen.This painting shows three horsemen pouring libationsat an altar. The colours have Caded somewhat, and so therestorations are not absolutely secure in all details. Thedress ofthe three horsemen displays two peculiar features.First, the three horsemen all seem to have long-sleevedtunics. These gannents, of Persian inspiration. seem tohave been introduced imo Macedonia during the reign

75

of Philip 11, and, other than this example, seem 10 havedied out by the end of the fourth century. Second. thecuirasses of the horsemen seem to be withOUl shoulder­guards: a feature one nonnally associates with lIaliancuirasses. The helmeted horseman, who 'wears a saffron­yellow cloak. is possibly from a Guard regiment. whilethe central horseman who wears a pink tunic, to judgeby his beret, or kausia, may be from a Macedonianregiment of the line. The horseman with a hat may befrom a regiment of Greek, possibly Thessalian, cavalry.(after Brown pp 52-3, pi xxiv, I).

Fig. 109. Reconstructions inspired by Fig. 108.

Fig. 110. Exploded view of the rightmost figure takenfrom Fig. 108.

Fig. 111. Graeco-Egyptian terracotla figurine of acavalryman from Achmounein. The cavalryman wearsa cloak, a cuirass fringed at the bottom wilh triangularpteruges worn over a tunic, and a sword (after PaulPerdrizet, Les terres cuites grecques de I 'Egypte de laCollection Fouquet (1921».

Fig. 112. Coin of Ptolemy VI Philometor, showing onthe reverse the Ptolemaic badge, the eagle of ZeusOlympics astride a thWlderbolt (RS. Poole,A CatalogueofCoins in the British Museum VII. The Ptolemies, KingsofEgypt (1883) pL xix, 8). AhcJmcl ~used as a subsidarymoneyer's mark. It isofa different type from the standard'Sidon Type A' helmet in use at this period (See VolumeI) and may belong to a guard cavalry regiment, such asthe 'palace cavalry' in which Kallikles held the post ofsquadron-eommander (photo: British Museum).

Fig. 113. Exploded view of the helmet shown on thecoin in Fig. 112.

Fig. 114. Wall-painting from the Egyptian city ofKaranis, late P10lcmaic orearly Roman in date, showinga 'heroic' horseman. The crosswork on his grayish bluevest possibly represents scale armour (Arthur E. Boak &Enoch E. Peterson, Karanis. Topographical andArchitectural Report ofExcavations During the Seasons1914-18 (University of Michigan Studies, HumanisticSeries Volume xxv, 193 I) pI. x.xiv fig. 48).

Fig. 115. Reconstruction inspired by Fig. 114.

Fig. 116. Grae:c:o-Egyptian terrnooua figurine ora wingedEros, wearing a wreath and carrying a thureos shield(after Paul Perdrizct, Les terres cuites grecques de/'Egypte de la Collection Fouquet (1921)).

76

Fig. 117. Graeco-Egyptian terracotla figure of the godHarpocration carrying a trumpet and a thureos shield(after Paul Perdrizet, Les tures cuites grecques del'Egypte de la Collection Fouquet (1921».

Fig. liS. Terracotta figurine of an Eros fromAchmounein, wreathed and dressed in acloak. He carriesa trumpet and a small bronze pe/te. His dress andequipment are presumably inspired by that worn byregiments ofpeltasts in the Ptolemaic army. (after PaulPerdrizet, Les terres cuites grecques de / 'Egypte de /aCollection Fouquet (1921».

Fig. 119. The god Bes was an extremely popular deityamong the soldiery of Egypt. and during the Graeco­Egyptian period he acquires contemporary military dressand equipment. In this terrncotta from Benha (Athribis)he appears with the short sword and small shield of thepcltast, dressed in a blue tunic and military boots. Hewears the diadem of vietory and tramples on a thureos,possibly representing the victory of the Ptolemaic forcesover their revolted Galatian mercenaries. (after PaulPerdrizet, Les terres cuites grecques de I 'Egypte de laCollection Fouquet (1921».

Fig. uo. This interesting figure ofBes from the Fayoumshows the god armed with a pelte and a muscle cuirassand blowing a hom. One would not normally expect tofind the muscle cuirass included in the equipment of apeUast, but this might be because the figure representsan officer (after Paul Perdrizet, Les terrescuitesgrecquesde l'Egyptt de la Collection Fouquet (1921».

Fig. 121. Galatian warrior. He carries the standardGalatian weapons of sword and thureos type of largeshield, and has a bare torso. He apparently wears trousersbut many similar figures are completely nude, forexample onc recent acquisition of the British Museumwho carries a shield with a diagonal decoration, whichwe have used in our colour plate (see e.g. Donald M.Bailey. Minerva, MaylJune 95. Gaulish and NubianMercenaries in P10lemaic Egypt. p. 37). Many figures ofGalatians are depicted with their right hand upon thesword hilt in the manner of this and the following figure,and it seems that the modeller has chosen this positiondeliberately, probably to reflect reality. Perhaps itrepresents some form of drill position (CollectionFouquet).

Fig. 122. Another long-baited Galatian warrior. TItisone "''Cars a large cloak which covers his nudity. Bluewould appear to have been the most lik.ely colour(Collection Fouquet).

Fig. 123. An e;.:tremely interesting model elephantfigurine from the Collection Fouquet, Paris. The howdahis not the typical enclosed type but appears to beconstructed of rails or slats with spaces between. Themahout appears to have negroid features and the elephanthas large ears suggesting it represents an African beast.At least one other elephant in the same collection hasextremely large ears too.

Fig. 124. Another interesting model elephant figurinefrom the Collection Fouquet, Paris. The elephant isextremely petite although of course modellers do notalways depict everything to scalel The mahout has darkskin and wears a white tunic exposing his right shoulder.

Fig. 125. Clay model sword or dagger; (see Fig. 126).

Fig. 126. Clay model sword or dagger, together withsheath, from the Greek city of Naucratis in Egypt. Notethe four-part pommel, derived from the Galatian sword,alongside a guard of entirely Greek shape (after RB.Waiters, Catalogue ofthe Terracottas in the DepartmentofGreek andRomanAnliquities, British Museum (1903)p. 259 fig. 53).

Figs. 127 & 128. In the second century BC theMacedonian shield, with its bronze facing highlydecorated with embossed repousse, became a commondecorative device for pottery, especially for bowls. InEgypt, however, the Macedonian shield is also found asa decorative device on canteen flasks and on lamps. Theseexamples were recovered from archaeologicalexcavations at Karanis (photos:The Kelsey Museum ofArchaeology)."

Fig. 129. This limestone model for a shield comes fromwhat was probably a Ptolemaic state weaIXlI1S factory nearMemphis, and probably dates to the early third centuryBC (Gerti Gagsteiger, Die ptolemdischen Waffenmode/leaus Memphis (1993) p.89). The infantry guards regiment,the agema, would hve been issued with bronzeMacedonian shields made to this pattern (photo: AllardPierson Museum, Amsterdam).

Figs. 130 and 131 were not available when Volume J,where they provide source material for Plate 3, went topress but are included here as addenda.

Fig. 130. This bronze coin was struck by the Syrian cityof Rhosos, which lay in the plain of Iskenderum on theborder of Cilicia some time after 39BC (cf GeorgeMacdonald, Catalogue ofGreek coins in the HunterianCollection, University ofGlasgow I JJ (1905) pi lxxiv,23; p. 210,23). It shows a round shiled with a narrowborder, which could be a pelte but which is perhaps moreprobably a rOWld hoplite shield, bearing the devioce ofabull. The significance of the device is quite inknown. Itcould make reference to the nearby Taurus mountainsbut it is probasbly best interpreted as a badge oCthe sea­god Poseidon. (photo: British Museum).

Fig. 131. Bronze coin of the Cilician city of Alexandriaon Issus, struck during the reign of Antiochus IV(Babylon, RoisdeSyrie p82 n0621,plxiv, 12; F. Imhoof­Blumer, Kleinasiatische Muntzen JJ (1902) pi xvi, 20).As its device it has a Macedonian shield bearing in itscentre the head of King Antiochus decorated with theroyal diadem and sun-burst crown (photo: BritishMuseum).

Fig. 132. This seal may possibly preserve the likeness ofPtolemy Eupator, the eldest son of Philometor(Vollenweider, Geneve Cat. lIno. 51).

Fig. 133. Terracotta statuette identified by Charbonneaux(BCH 79 (1955) pp. 528-532) as a copy of a statue ofAlexander BaIas, now in the Louvre (D 1097; Besques,Louvre Cat. JJ1 pI. 222d). 11 is highly significant that theterracotta was found in Smyma, the home ofBalas whilstin exile. He wears a narrow wrap-around cloak, anephaptis, with a broach clipped on at the shoulder.(photo: Louvre).

Fig. 134. This "rather forbidding-looking" head in theLouvre (Ma 3546) of a woman who "would stop atnothing to attain her ends" was attributed to eitherCleopatra II or 1lI by Charbonneaux (Richter, PortraitsoJ the Greeks JJJ fig. 1851). The motivation of bothCleopatras, mother and daughter alike, was to hold ontopower at ail costs (photo: Louvre).

Fig. 135. This seal may possibly represent the likenessof PlOlemy VIII Euergctcs II, though certainty in thismattcr is impossible. (Vollcnweider, Gent?ve Cat. JJ no.65).

77

CHAPTER 7THE INTERVENTION OFPHILOMETOR IN SYRIA.

Euergetes' Invasion of C)'prus.

Meanwhile Euergetes had still maintained his claim overCyprus, and around the )'ear 155 he resolved to rnak:eanother attempt to recover the island, by stealth Ifnecessary. First ofall he claimed to have been the victimofa treacherous plot hatched by Philomctor to have himassassinated. He made a will leaving his whole kingdomto the Romans if he should die without issue, and thentravelled to Rome to appeal for her help, displaying thescars from the alleged assassination attempt before theSenate. The Senate would not even listen to Philomctor'sembassy, but appointed five legates, headed once againby Gnaeus Mcrula and by Lucius Thermus, gave thc~ aquinqucreme each, and ordered them to re·estabhshEucrgctes on Cyprus. Letters were seol to Romc's alliesin Greece and Asia informing them of the Senate'sdecision. On the strength ofthis support Euergctes landedon the island and installed himself at Lapcthos.Philometor, however, .once again refused to accept thedecision of the Senate!

1be dispute of the brothers over possession of Cyprushad caused others to cast CO\·etous eyes on the island.Whilst these events were going on Archias, the governorof Cyprus, was found in secret communication withDemelrius of Syria. Archias is probably to be identifiedwith the homonymous individual who had accompaniedPhilomctor to Rome in 164, and who had lodged withthe exiled Demetrius whilst Philomelor was living in anappropriately humble garret. Art:hias and Demetrius may'well have reached an agreement then to maintain contact.Demetrius now offered him 500 talents if he wouldsurrender the island. Archias was, however, detected inhis treasonable dealings, and, upon being brought to trial,hung himself with rope taken from some curtainhangings. The Seleucid attempt on the island had beenfoiled, and the Egyptian king now turned to deal withhis brother.

Following the fall of Macedon in 168 it seems that thestates of Crete had appealed to the Ptolemaie kingdomto arbitrate t1lcir differences. Philometor was appointedprostates, or 'president' of the Cretan League, and thestale of Itanos asked him to send a military force tointervene in her dispute with the neighbouring state ofPraisos. Egypt had previously maintained a garrison atltanos, which had provided tbcm with a naval base at

78

the enLrance to the Aegean. It seems that Philometorrestored this garrison, and during his reign Thera andperhaps Methana were also held in the Aegean.Philometor now called upon the Cretan League for helpagainst Euergetcs on Cyprus. A number of inscriptionshave been preserved erected by the troops of the Cretanallied contingent sent out to help Philometor secure theisland. One honoun the king's general, called Agelaosof Cos.

With his own forces and the Cretan allies Philometorput the city ofLapethos under siege, and Euergetes waseventually forced to surrender. Philometor now had himcompletely under his power, and he may have consideredputting him to death, but his sensitive nature prohibitedhim from taking this most expedient course ofaction. IfEucrgetcs was not to be killed, then somehow he mustbe reconciled. Philometor guaranteed Eucrgetcs' personalsafety, allowed him to retain possession of Cyrene andallocated him a fixed amount ofgrain armually. He alsobetrothed him to his daughter Cleopatra. Had Philomctorbeen able to sce a dozen years into the future, it is doubtfulwhether he would have condemned his own children andheirs to death for love of his brother. Diodorus (31.33)suggests that, as well as his own innate goodness, andthe family ties which sta)'ed Philometor's hand fromfratricidal miasma, fear of the Romans also held himback. In order to secure his hold on the island Philometorinstalled his son, Ptolemy Eupator 'of good father' asgovernor of Cyprus. Eupator died prematurely in ISO,and Philometor subsequently placed a second teenageson, the future Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator, born around162, in command of the island.

The Cyprus Garrison.

Recent events had demonstrated the importance ofholding Cyprus, and during the latter part ofPhilometor'sreign much work was put into the improvement of thegarrison of the island. A large number of inscriptionsdating from around this time have been recovered fromCyprus, in the main from Paphos the new capital of theisland. Thanks mainly to the detailed studies of T.B.Mitford, they shed a great deal of light on the garrisonstationed on the island during the second centwy. Underthe reign of Philometor the casual mercenary structureof the garrison was altered (Opu5Cu/a Atheniensia I(1953) p. 149-150). The visit of KallikJes to the island,presumably to reform and re-train the infantry regiments,has already been mentioned. 1be military 'architectsstationed on the island' under the command of oneKarpion are also mentioned. A regiment (tagmo) of

veteran artillerists and a regiment of junior artillerists(tavgma tw'n presbutcvrwn (or ncwtevrwn) ajfetw'n)honour acitizcn ofPatara in Lycia. who also seems to bea military architect It it possible that the soldiers ofthcsetwo regiments were Lycians too. After lhe death ofPhilometor and the accession of Euergetcs the island'sgarrison was concentrated at the capital Paphos atSalamis and possibly at Kition too. Cilician and Lycianregiments were stationed at Paphos and a Cretan regimentat Salamis (BSA 56 (1961) p. 27-9). Ionian and Achaeanregiments are also known. The regiment of Achaea.nsmay 'well have been composed of fugitives from theRoman conquest of the Achaean League (OpusculaAtheniensia 1 (1953) p. 152 n. 70)

The Fall of Demetriw: n of Syria.

Oemetrlus of Syria was now surrounded by enemieswithin and without the Seleucid Empire. Popularsentiment among the Antiochcne public was starting torun against him. One ofthe mercenaries who had helpedDemetrius gain power in Syria. a man named Andriskos,claimed, whether falsely or DOl, to be a son ofPerseus ofMacedon, and, therefore, to be a son ofDemetrius' sisterLaodike. Andriskos called upon his uncle [0 restore himto the Macedonian throne. The mob took up the call,and demanded that Oemetrius should abdicate if hecouldn't play the role of king. Fearing lest the situationshould move further out of his control, Demetrius hadAndriskos arrested at night and packed oIJto Rome. TheRomans ordered Andriskos to live in Italy, well out ofharm's way. Dcmetrius' settlement in Cappadocia hadnot lasted either. In 156 Ariarathcs was reinstated as kingin Cappadocia by Pergamenc forces, and Demctrius wasunable to prevent the expulsion of his nomineeOrophemes from the country. When the exiled king setup his residence in Antioch, the Antiochene mob sawanolher tangible sign of Demetrius' impotence. Let usnot forget that Demetrius had been educated in his youthby lhe Epicurean philosopher Philonides of Laodiceia,which will surely have had a deleterious influence onthe king's capacity to rule eIJectively.

Meanwhile AttaJos of Pergamon found a young manresiding in Smyrna, called Alexander, who claimed tobe a son ofAntiochus Epiphanes. Attalos recognized himas the rightful king ofSyria, and set him up in Pergamon,together with his sister Laodike. in royal estate. He VIassubsequently put under the protection of the dynastZenophanes, who probably ruled the city of Olba inCilicia, and began to stir up trouble on Syria's border.Philometor, still smarting at Dcmelrius' attempt to secure

Cyprus through treachery, also recognized him as king.Herakleides of Miletus, wilh all his comJpt contacts inRome, introduced Alexander to the Senate. Demelriushad sent his yOWlg son, the fulure: Dcmelrius 11, to Rometo try to gain support there, but without success. TheSenate granted pennission to Alexander "to claim thethrone of his ancestors", and Herakleides at once beganto gather mercenaries, moved to Ephesus, and startedpreparations for an invasion.

Alexander, for some reason given the name Balas, movedto Cilicia first, and by October 152 he had landed atPtolemars-Acre, where he was welcomed by the garrison.Demetrius withdrew his forces from Judaea in order toconcentrate his forces against Balas, and granted fairlycomplete independence to the high·priest Jonathan.Jonathan accepted all these privileges, but then switchedhis support to Balas. Balas now started to recruitsupporters among the Syrians, in addition to themercenaries he already had in service. It may be thatPhilometor sent an expeditionary force into Syria insupport ofBalas, for Diodems (33.20.1) tells us that "inthe war against Dcmetrius", ..those of the anny fromAlexandria" were commanded by Galaistes, the son ofAmynander, the last king of the Athamanians (Bevan,Egypt p. 303). The two armies met, probably in thesummer of 150, and though the anny of Dc.metrius wasvictorious, Demetrius was killed. For the while, the wholeof the Seleucid Empire recognized Balas as king, andhis coins ,",,-ere struck as far east as Ecbatana (Morkholmp. 178). Now Balas was firmly established in Syria, heproposed to Philometor that the two kingdoms join in analliance. They met at Ptolemal'S where Balas was marriedto Philometor's daughter Clcopatra.

The IntCn'cntion of Philometor.

Over lhc next couple of years, however, Balas provedhimself to be a dissolute creature of no value. He wasquite interested in philosophy, and is known to haveassociated wilh the Epicurean Diogenes of Scleuceiawhilst resident in Tarsus. Balas "collected philosophersand apparently found him amusing" (Tarn, Bactritr p.41). Rule was actually exercised by one Ammonios.Whilst Balas revelled in the bistros and brothels ofAntioch, Anunonios killed alllhe 'King's Friends', andhad Oemctrius' sister and (probably) royal widowLaodike and his son eliminated. The satrapies of Mediaand Susiana were lost to the Parthians about 148n BC.Meanwhile Alexander's governor of Koile-Syria,Apollonios, was unable to keep Jonathan and his Jewishanny in check. They defeated Apollonius in battle, and

79

then attacked the city of Azotos, burning the temple andeight thousand souls who had taken refuge within thetemple precincts. Disaffection with the new regime waswidespread, and in 147 the teenage son of Demcmus Iappeared in Cilicia laying claim to the throne. Dcmetrius11 had been sent to Asia Minor as a fugitive by his fatherDemetrius I shortly before his fall. He now raised anarmy in Crete through the offices of the Cretan soldieroffortune Lasthenes, who can probably be identified withLasthenes son of Eunomos of Cnosses (Habicht, CAlPviii p. 364 n. 150).

Philometor, together with an army and a fleet, enteredKoile-Syria to fight as an ally of Balas, passing throughAzotos along the Palestinian coast as far as Ptolemais.All the cities "'deomed Philomctor as their defenderagainst the e.'(ccsscs of Jonathan, and Philornetor left agarrison of troops in each town he passed through (IMace. I I.3), probably at the request of the inhabitantsthemselves. At PtolemaIs Philometor met Balas, and itwas there that Ammonios tried to have Philometorassassinated, but the plot failed. When Philometor askedBalas to hand over Ammonios for punishment, and Balasrefused, PhiJomelor realized that it was Balas himselfwho had hatched the plot. They parted and Philometortransferred the hand of his daughter from Balas toDememus II. Dcmemus accepted the offer.

Meanwhile the citizens of Antioch expelled Balas, whoflcd to Cilicia. It was probably at this point thatAmmonios met his death, cut down as he altempted toescape the capital disguised as a woman. The revolt hadbeen led by the rn'o generals Balas had put in chaJge ofthe city, Hierax and Diodotos.. They had despaired ofAlexander ever achieving success, but they wcre equallyafraid to put themselves in the hands of Dcmetrius nbecause they had betrayed his father Demetrius 1.Consequently the two generals invited Philometor intothe city, and then urged him to take the Seleucid thronefor himself. A chance to unite the Ptolemaic and Seleucidthrones had come round once again wilhin the space ofa single generation.

Out sources arc now somewhat contradictory. Some saythat be did, in fact, accept (l Mace 11.13; er. Joseph.,Ant. Jud 13.113). It seems more probable, howC'o'er, thatPhilometor, under the baleful eye of Rome, declined theoffer, and persuaded the Antiochenes to aa:epl: Demet.rius11 as their ruler. Coc1c Syria, already under Ptolemaicmilitary occupation, was ceded to Egypt. Perhaps hadthe situation arisen a year earlier, before the Romanlorching ofCarthage and Corinth, Philomclor may haveaccepted the diadem.

80

Rome Supreme.

Andriskos had escaped from Italy and made his \\-ay toMiletus, where the city magistrates at first arrested andimprisoned him, but subsequently released him so as notto lend any credence to his stories. Andriskos made hisway towards Macedonia, and as he did so more and morepeople joined his cause. He entered Macedonia fromThrace, and the country rose in his favour. Andriskosrelied for support upon the poor, for it was the wealthyclasses who invariably supported the Romans. In 149 hegained a resounding victory over the Romans,commanded by P. Iuvcntius Thalna, and the next yearhe marched south into Thessaly, where, however, hesuffered defeat at the hands of the army of the AchaeanLeague. commanded by Scipio Nasica. In 148 Andriskosand the Macedonians were finally defeated, once againat Pydna, by a Roman army of two legions commandedby Q. Caecilius MeteIJus, who adopted the title•Macedonicus' on account of his exploit. Andriskos hadappointed a general named Te1estes as commander ofhis cavalry. Telestes, however, went over to CaeciJiusMeleJlus, and with him went the aristocratic cavalry andAndriskos' hopes of success.

Meanwhile discontent was simmering within theAehaean League. Tension between the pro-Romanaristocrats and the poor was one factor, but it was perhapsinevitable that hopeless resistance to Roman crueltywould eventually flare up (peter Green, Alexander toActium. The Hellenistic Age (1990) p. (48). The resultwaseataslrophe.ln 146 the League's army marched northunder the strategos Critolaos to re-impose the disciplineof the League over the recalcitrant city of Herakleia. Hemet the army of MeteJlus at Skarpheia and was soundlydefeated. The League had somehow stumbled into openwar with Rome totally unprepared, but once in thatposition it resolved to resist with all the means at itsdisp:>sal. Twelve thousand slaves were emancipated andarmed, and with this force the new strat~gos Diaiosallcmpted to prevent the Roman army, now under thecommand of Lucius Mummius, from entering thePeloponnese. The rn'o armies met at Leucopetra on theIsthmus, the Achaean cavalry seems to have gone overto the Romans, and the Achaean infantry wereslaughtered. Corinth fell after a short siege, all the menin the city were massacred, the women and children weresold into slavery and the city was razed to the ground.Carthage had already fallen earlier that year, and Rome'sdominance in the Mediterranean was now all butcomplcle.

Tbe Battle of tbe Rh'er Oinoparas.

Meanwhile in Syria Alexander Balas relUmed to the fraywith a large anny raised in Cilicia and a huge supply ofarms. He laid waste the territory ofthe Antiochenes, untilthe combined army of Philometor and Dcmetrius methim on the banks of the river Oinoparas. Unfortunatelyfew details of this battle have been preserved in theancient sources. We are told (Joseph., AnI. Jud. 13.117)that during the battle, Philometor's horse shied when itheard an elephant trumpeting, and threw the king to theground. TIle elephant ....'3$ prcsumablyan African broughtalong with the Ptolemaic anny. The enemy troops closedin on Philometor and wounded him repeatedly about thehead, until he was rescued by the officers of his staff(sojJmolophy/akes - 'bodyguards'). He was carried fromthe battlefield and remained uncoocious for foue days.

BaIas fled the battlefield eastwards accompanied by onlySOO horsemen (including the tranNcxuaJ Diophantos)towards the Syrian desert. At Abai on the edge of thedesert be took refuge with the local dynast Diokles, inwhose protection he had left his infant son Antiochus.At Abai, ho....ever. 1\\'0 ofAlexander's officers and 'King'sFriends', Heliades and Kasios, after entering intonegotiations with Dcmetrius, assassinated Alexander anddeserted to Demctrius. On the flfth day Philometor cameto his senses, but his skull was fractured. He died underthe hands of the surgeon later that day at the age offorty­one or two, but at least with the satisfaction ofwitnessingthe delivery of the head of Balas from Abai. Thus diedthe last really great Macedonian King, having receivedhis mortal wound riding "amongst the fighters of thefield, after the manner ofthe old Macedonian chiefs fromwhom he sprang" (Bevan, Egypl p. 305).

Conclusion.

When HannibaJ invaded Italy with less than 20,000 men,Polybius (2.24.16) tells us that the Romans and theirAllies were capable of mustering, at least on paper,700,000 foot and 70,000 horse. It was Rome's capacityto mobilize such huge annies which defeated Macedon,rather than any innate superiority of the Roman militarysystem. However many annies the incompetence ofRoman military conunanders could lose, there was alwaysa near-inexhaustible reservoir of manpower to draw on(cf. P.A. Brunt, ltalion Manpower 225 B.C. - A.D. /4(1971». The first }'eafS of the Third Macedonian Warsaw many Roman reverses, but these didn't matter. Allthat mattered was the last battle. Looked at from thisperspective the reformatory efforts of Epiphanes and

Philometor were doomed to failure. From the point ofview of these two monarchs, however, it was stillworthwhile making the attempt, for the only otheralternative was, it would seem, to do nothing. WhilstPhilip V had not attempted to introduce 'Roman' rcfonnsinto the Macedonian Army, presumably because be stillbelieved in the superiority of Macedonian militarysystems, he did make considerable efforts to expand theMacedonian recruiting base between the Second andThird Macedonian Wars. The Macedonian poor ....'eregiven plots of royal land in Thracc and infanticide wasbanned. These efforts gave Perseus a much bigger armyto field against the Romans than his father had ever hadat his disposal, but even this wasn't enough. Ultimatelyit was manpower which counted, and ifour sources forthe reigns of Epiphanes and Philometor ~-ere morecomplete, it is possible that they may well have madeattemptS to expand the manpower at their disposal byincreased land-grants, military settlement, expansion ofthe cleruch or katoooc systems etc., but we simply haveno infonnation on the subject.

AfIerthe deaths ofAntiochus Epiphanes and Philometor,the power of the newly reconstituted Seleucid andPtolemaic states rapidly unravelled. This was due to thedrastic shift which had taken place in the international'balance of power'. The equilibrium which had beenestablished between the Ptolemaic, Seleucid andAntigonid Monarchies in the second quarter ofthe thirdcentury was replaced by a void. A huge super·power,Rome, had suddenJy appeared in the west, and after thefall of Macedon the remaining two kingdoms weremilitarily and politically dwarfed by her. A remarkablefeature of the Hellenistic dynasties had been the quitesurprising degree ofdynastic solidarity which had existedduring the third century. This ail broke down during thesecond century when subordinate siblings realized thatthey could leapfrog their way onto the throne by appealto the giant in tlle west. Roman senators were only toowilling to help if their palms were suitably greased. Theultimate result ofall these machinations was the collapseof all political stability in the Eastern Mediterranean.

81

CHAPTERSEPILOGUE - THE SYRIAN SUNSET.

Philo~ctor had made his seventeen-year old son jointruler In June 145 as Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator.Philometor died in the late summer of 145, and hisbrother Euergetes immediately marched from Cyrene toseize the Egyptian throne, which he secured by lateSeptember. Cyprus may have held out for Neosuntil early144, but the position aCthe teenage king was untenable.In August 144 he was killed upon his uncle's orders.What happened next is not understood precisely. Theroyal widow, Cleopatra n, was somehow persuaded tomany her younger brother, Ptolemy vm Euergetes U~h~~ or, ·~alty·. disgusting in appearance and savageIn his vmdieuveness. According to the racy narrative of!ustin (38.8), Neos Philopator was actually assassinatedm the arms arhis mother at the wedding-feast. Euergetespromptly had a child nick-named 'Memphites' byC:1eopaua U, then violated her young daughter, his ownmece, to whom he had been betrothed by Philometor. In142 he look her publicly to wife as Cleopatra ill andmade herco-regent, though without being able to divorceCleopatra II. How many of the more salacious segmentsof the story are rhetqrical embroiderings is unknown,but there seems to be ~ilUe doubt that Euergetes was nola very nice person.

Shortage of revenues caused discontent among themercenaries oftbe Alexandrian garrison, and many "'erebanished on account of these difficulties. Galaistes, theAthamanian general of Philomelor, had fled to Greecewhen Euergetes IT hnd taken Ihe throne, and he nowproduced a son of Philometor, with whom he claimedhe. hnd been entrusted by Ihe late king. Gathering th~eXIled malcontents around him, in 140 he made anat~empt on Alexandria. Euergetes was only saved byHlerax, Balas' general who had handed Anlioch over toPhilomclor, and who had then gone over to Euergetes.~erax, a milta~ wizard wilh the useful knack ofdealingWIth crowds, paid the mercenaries OUI onus own pockeland saved the city for the king, bUI the rest ofEuergetes'reign is marked by civil wars, native unrest and generalchaos.

The populace of Alexandria suffered greatly during hisreign, from executions, banishments, confiscations andmassacres perpetr.ued by the soldatesca. The intelligenziaofthe city suffered particularly severely wlCJer this regime,as many had been closely attached 10 Philometor a manof high culture and sensitivity. These men we~e nowregarded as enemies by Euergetes. The best minds

82

attached to the famous A1exandrianMuseion Oedorwerebanished. This dispersal of talent was to have a noxiouseffect on the greatest centre of culture in the Hellenisticworld (Bevan, Egypt p. 308).

Demetrius IL

The Syrian crown feU to Demetrius 11, who was probablyaged no more than fifteen at the time, as the only kingleft alive on the battlefield. Lasthenes and the othercontrollers of Dcmctrius attacked Philometor's troops,who made their way back, as best they could, to EgyptThe African elephants fell into the hands of Demetriusn (Joseph., Ant. Jud. 13.120; Bevan, House ofSeleucus1I p. 226 n. 4). Koile-Syria was abandonned to the~Ieuc~d Empire, and Demetrius was installed as kingIn. Anlloch. Lasthc:nes initiated a reign of terror, as hemilked the country of its resources to pay his Cretanmercenaries. The Seleucid anny was demobilized, andonly the mercenaries were maintained. Jonathan, nowofficially recognized as High-Priest in Jerusalem byDemetrius, sent him 3,000 troops in retwn. Importantindividuals who had opposed Demetrius in the war "''eregiven bizarre punishments. As a precaution against revoltthe Antiochenes were disanned under the supervision ofthe mercenaries. When elements of the Antiochenecitizenry rebelled against this treaunent they were cutdown in their homes together with their wives andchildren. A mass riot ensued.

The Cretan Terror.

The Antiochenes, though leaderless, numbered manythousands: 120,000 according to J Mace. 11.45. Theymade their way to the royal palace, blocking thesurrounding streets and seeking to get their hands onthe king. The Jews and the Cretans, probably mainlyarchers, wenl up to the rooves of the palace and startedshooting on the crowds below. The crowds were unableto fight back, not having the advantage of height, andwere ~t down rapidly. Being largely 'Macedonians', anddemobllzcd from the heavy infantry, their heavy annourwas inappropriate for this kind of battle. They fell backfrom the houses around the palace, which the mercenariestorched to create a safety cordon round the palace. Thefire. rapidly spread out of control and swept through themamly wooden houses of the city. The Antiochenes fledfrom the arrows and the flames, but the mercenariespursued them, leaping from roof to roofabove the flamesand the crowds. The Antiochene males now attemptedto make their way back to their houses to save their wivesand families, and ceasc:d to fight. The king sent out troops

into the side-streets to cut them down, until they threwaway their armour and began to surrender to the royalanny. According to 1 Mace. 11.47 as many as a hundredthousand Antiochenes fell.

The general Diodotus had already revolted fromDememus and fled Antioch. He first managed to obtainthe support of the Larissaians, and then ofthe Arab rulerIamblichos, who had the young son of Alexander Balasin his keeping. Exploiting the popularity ofthe memoryof Antiochus IV, Diodotus had the young prince crownedas Antiochus VI Epiphanes, and established him in acamp near the city of Chalcis on the border ofthe desert.Discontented Syrians flocked to the army of the youngking. Demetrius marched out against Diodotus, but hewas defeated, and lost his elephants and the city ofAntioch to Diodotus.

Demetrius retreated to Cilicia, from where he made anumber ofattempts to install himselfin Syria once again,but all without success. The instability of the westernEmpire during these years had encouraged thedisintegration ofthe Empire in the upper satrapies. Someofthe south--eastern provinces ofthe Empire had alreadysucceeded in breaking away and establishing their ownindependence in the years after the death of AntiochusIV. Hyspaosines the satrap of Charakene was perhapsthe first, shortly followed by Karnnaskires of Elymais.Persis became independent in the l40s, and the Parthianstook over Media. Inscriptions from Susa continue to bedated exclusively by the Selcucid era down to at least142/1 (Sherwin White & Kuhrt, Samarkand /0 Sardis p.223-6), but Susiana too would be lost soon. Under thesecircumstances Mithridates I resolved to take what hecould of the collapsing Empire. A very brokenastronomical diary dated to 141 reflects an initial Parthianseizure ofSeleuceia-on-Tigris by Mithridates r (SherwinWhite & Kuhrt, Samarkand to Sardis p. 224).

Unable to re-establish himself in Syria, Demetriusresolved to take an enonnous gamble. The Greek andMacedonian communities in the Upper Satrapies had senthim repeated applications for help, offering to go over tohis side and join them in a war against Mithridates.Demetrius hoped to effect his return to Syria afterrecouping his strength by conquering the UpperSatrapies. Mesopotamia was still held for him byDionysios the Mede, and in 140 Demetrius crossed theEuphrates, moved into Mesopotamia and marched onSeleuceia-on-Tigris. Everywhere the conquered peoplesrose against the Parthians. and allied contingents weresent to fight on his side by the Persians, Elymaeans and

Bactrians. He was, however, captured by the Parthianking, after having been lured into a treacherous parley.

Diodotus had meanwhile murdered the young kingAntiochus VI around 138, and assumed the throne forhimselfunder the name ofTryphon. From the west cameyet another rival candidate to fight him for the throne."But the new claimant was not a man like the otherineffcctual personalities who flit across the stage in thattime of ruin and confusion. One more man capable ofrule and of great action, one more luminous figure, thehouse which had borne the empire of Asia had to showthe world before it went out into darkness" (Bevan., HouseofSeleucus 11 p. 236). The new king, Antiochus VII,was a younger brother ofDememus n, had grown up inthe Pamphylian city of Side. He sailed to Syria in 138and married his brother's widow. Tryphon was eventuallycaptured, and the Macedonian general was allowed totake his own life. Some time was now spent inconsolidating and re-organizing the Empire in the west,and it was only ill 130 that Antiochus felt sufficientlyprepared to take in hand the recovery of the UpperSatrapies.

He set out from Antioch with an army of 80,000. Thisfigure is in itself a testament to the degree the Empirehad recovered its strength during his reign. Justin (38. 10)tells us that the sandals of this army were studded withgold, and were accompanied by innumerable camp­followers, but much ofthis may be rhetoric. Three battleshad to be fought before the reconquest ofBabylonia wascomplete, and then all the other provinces previouslyheld by the Seleucids, except for Parthia itself, came overto Antiochus' side. The anny was now dispersed forwinter quarters throughout the cities of the easternprovinces. The billeting caused much discontent, andthe Parthian king Phraatcs schemed to use this to hisadvantage. During the spring of 129 news reachedAntiochus in Ecbatana that the population ofa numberof the Median cities had risen and attacked theirgarrisons. He instantly marched out with the limitedforces at his disposal to help the nearest body of troopsunder threat, and somehow blundered into the mainParthian force. He was killed in the confused fightingwhich followed, and his conquests evaporated as rapidlyas they had been achieved.

83

ABBREVIATIONS & BmLIOGRAPHY.

The foUowing works have been referred to repeatedly inabbreviated form in the pages above.

In the main the standard abbreviations have been usedfor ancient sources, and where nOl the abbreviations usedwill, I trust, be more readily recognizable. The followingabbreviations are also used.

Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeu$. The JewishSlnIggle against the Se/eucids (1989).

Blanche R Brown, Pto/emoie Paintings and Mosaicsand the Alexandrian Style (1957).

Simone Mollard-Besques. Musee National du Louvre.Catalogue raisonne des Figurines et Reliefs en terre­cuUe grecs, etrusques et romains 1-111(1954-1986).

Ed\ryll Robert Bevan, The House ofSeleucus (1902).

Edwyn Bevan, A History ofEgypt under the Pro/emoieDynas(Y (1927).

E.Bikennan, Institutions des Sifeucides (1938).

Dorothy 1. Crawford, Kerkeosiris. An Egyptian Villagein the Ptolemaic Period (1971).

E. ¥Cm t'Dack, Pto/emaica Se/ecra. Eludes sur "arn/eeetl 'administration lagides(Studia Hellenistica 29, 1988)

Ladislav Zgusta, Kleinasiatisehe Personnennamen(1964).

Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, Plolenaerarmee inThebais (1978).

Back Cover Figure - Silver tetradrachm of PtolemyVI Philometor struck at Ptolemafs-Ake, and now inthe BibliotMque Nationale (R.S. Poole.A Cataloguea/Coins in lhe British Museum VIJ. The Ptolemies.Kings ofEgypl (1883) pt x.xxii, 8). This is the onlysecure portrait of the king which ",-e have (photo:Bibliotheque Nationale).

E. V.m t'Dack, W.Clarysse, G.Cohen, J. Quaegebeur &J.K. Winnicki, The Judean-Syrian-Egyplian Confliclof)03·)01 B.C.. A Mulli/ingua/ Dossier Concerning 0

"War ofSceptres" (Collectaneo Hel/enisUca I, 1989).

Pelros Dintsis, Hel/enistische Helme (1986).

Louis Jalabert, 'NolNelles Steles Peintes de Sidoo' RevuearcMologique 1904 (2), 1·16.

Marcel Launey, Recherr::hessur lesArmIeshellenisliques1-1I (1949-50, repr. 1987).

Jean Lesquier, Les lnsritutions militaires de 1'tgypre sousles fAgides (1911 repr. 1973).

J.P.Mahaffy, A History of Egypl under the Plo/emoieDynas(Y (1898)

G. Mendel, Coralague des sculptures greeques, romaineset byzanUnes (NIusees lmperiaux Otromans) vol. 1(1912),258-270.

Ono Morkholm.Antiochus IV a/Syria (1966).

Paul Perdizel, us Terres cuiles greeques de 1'Egypt dela Collleelion Fouquel (1921).

Louis Robert, ElUdes analoliennes (1937).

LouisRoben, Noms indigenesdans I 'Asie Mineuregrioo­romaine I (1963)

Louis Robert, Opera Minora Seleela I- (1969).

H. Russcll Robinson, The Armour of ImperialRome (1975).

W. W. Tarn, The Greeks In Baelria and India(2nd. cd., 1951).

Marie-Louise \klllenweidcr, Musle d'Arl et d'Histoirede Geneve. Catalogue raisonne des sceaux, cylindres,intailles et camees 1I (1979).

F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius I(1956) - III (1979).

The Annual of/he British School atAthens 1- (1895-).Cambridge Ancient History.Ch. Daremberg & F. Saglio,Dictionnaire des anfiquiles grecques etmmaines d'opres Its (exits et Itsmonuments (1877-1919).F. Jacoby, Fragmentt Griechischt!rHis/or/ker (1923-).inscr/pt/ones Graecae (1873-).Journal 0/Egyptian Archaeology 1­(1914-).RP. Grenfell, An Alexandrian erolicfragment and other Greek papyri chieflyPto/emoie (1896).Teblunfs Papyri (1902-1938).Revue arche%gique (1844-).Revue de Phi/a/ogie 1- (l877-).Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum1- (1923·).Transactions a/the American Phil%gi­col Association 1- (1870-).

BSA

CAHDar.-Sag.

1ilPA

FGrH

P. Gren!

IGJEA

P. Tebt.Rev. arch.Rev. Phi!.SEG

84

•

;JIOllTVERTPIJ1JLICATIONS

This volume and its companion volume gather. for the first time, the literary andarchaeological evidence for the 'Romanizatjoo' ofthe Selcudd and Ptotema.icannies duringthe reigns ofAntiochus IV Epiphanes OfSyri3 (175-164 BC) and Ptolemy VI PhilometorofEgypt ( 180-145 BC). It has long been realized that the late Hellenistie armies ofthe firstcentury BC were equipped and organized along Roman lines. It seems, however, that theprocess started during the second quarter of the second century, probably as a directconsequence ofthe Roman victory over Macedon at the Battle ofPydna in 168 BC. In thisvolume, which concerns the Ptolemaic anny under Ptolemy VI Philometor, an analysis ofthe reformed army based upon the work of Kalliklcs son of KaJlikles the AJexandrian iscarried out. Also, one of the most in depth studies ever of late Hellenistic soldiers isundertaken when a set of tombstones from SideD is described in detail.

ISBN 1-874101~5