| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions! Dokkio, a new product from the PBworks team, integrates and organizes your Drive, Dropbox, Box, Slack and Gmail files. Sign up for free.

View
 

Galatian

Page history last edited by PBworks 12 years, 8 months ago

II/30 Galatian

 

Author: Duncan Head

 

Synopsis: Allow Antiochos Hierax as a Seleucid ally contingent

 

Proposal:

 

Add the following lines:

 

Only in 241-227 BC:

Antiochos Hierax's Seleucid rebel allies – List: Seleucid (Bk 2)

 

Add to notes:

"The Galatians fought as allies of Antiochos Hierax, ruler of Seleucid Asia Minor, against his brother Seleukos II. They won a battle for him near their capital at Ancyra, and it is likely that they provided most of the troops, hence Hierax is treated as an ally in this list rather than vice versa. Hierax may have continued to support them against Pergamon."

 

Add to "Rules considerations" section of notes:

"Seleucid allies may not include the normally compulsory Agema and Argyraspids."

 

Justification:

 

Antiochos Hierax allied with the Galatians against Seleukos II in the so-called War of the Brothers.

 

The main source is Justin's epitome of Trogus, 27.2.10-12 to 27.3.2:

 

"But the peace that was granted Seleucus by his enemy, was broken by his own brother, who, having hired an army of Gauls, brought hostilities instead of succour, and showed himself, though he had been implored for aid, an enemy instead of a brother. In the battle that followed Antiochus was victor, indeed, through the prowess of the Gauls; but they, thinking that Seleucus had fallen on the field, began to turn their arms against Antiochus himself, in the hope of ravaging Asia with greater freedom, if they destroyed the whole royal family. Antiochus, seeing their design, purchased peace from them, as from robbers, with a sum of money, and formed an alliance with his own mercenaries. Meanwhile Eumenes, king of Bithynia {sic: Pergamon, in fact}, when the brothers were divided and exhausted by civil war, attacked both the victorious Antiochus and the Gauls, as if he intended to take possession of Asia while it was left without a master. Nor did he find any difficulty in overthrowing them, as they were weakened by their previous conflicts, and he himself was fresh and vigorous."

- http://www.attalus.org/translate/justin4.html#27.2

 

From Trogus's prologue to that book:

"Seleucus' war ... in Asia against his own brother, Antiochus Hierax, a war in which he was defeated by the Gauls at Ancyra"

- http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/justinus_08_prologi.htm

 

Graham Shipley (The Greek World After Alexander 323-30 BC(2000), p.290), dates the War of the Brothers to c. 241-239. M Cary (A History of the Greek World 323 to 146 BC pp.109-112) dates it to 237-236. 241 thus seems the earliest date for the alliance.

 

After Hierax and the Galatians initially defeated Seleukos they clearly fell out, but may have co-operated again later. Cary suggests that they fought together against the attacks of Eumenes of Pergamon: presumably this is Justin's "alliance" followed by what he describes as attacks on Antiochos and the Gauls.

 

Antiochos was eventually defeated and exiled. At one point he invaded Babylonia: Cary dates this to 227, by which time Hierax had been driven out of Asia Minor and had taken refuge with Arsames of Lesser Armenia. If so, he may no longer have had Galatian support. However, B Bar-Kochva (Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids (1989) pp. 500-507) links this invasion with II Maccabees chapter 8, in which 8,000 Babylonian Jews helped 4,000 hard-pressed Macedonians to defeat 120,000 Galatians. If this does refer to Hierax's invasion, and if Cary is correct in dating it to 227, that must be the latest likely end-date for the Galatian-Hierax alliance.

 

I suggest allowing a Seleucid alliance in the Galatian list rather than vice versa because:

 

- The Anatolian-based Seleucid forces that Hierax controlled were generally small. Achaios later fielded 6,000 foot and 500 horse (Polybios V.72.3; these may not have been his entire force but do seem to have been his main field-army) and Bar-Kochva (in The Seleucid Army (1976) p.41) estimates the military settlers of Asia Minor at less than 6,000 foot.

 

- By contrast the Tectosages and Trocmi, two of the three Galatian tribes, were said to field 50,000 foot and 10,000 horse at Olympos in 189 (Livy 38.26). Even if exaggerated, this would be comfortably more than Hierax could field.

 

- That the main battle was at Ancyra, the Galatian capital, suggests the Galatians could have fielded most of their manpower.

 

- If the Galatian campaign in Babylonia does indeed reflect Hierax's invasion, the reported figure of 120,000 Galatians, though obviously exaggerated, does suggest a large army, overshadowing any allies.

 

 

 

Author Jim Webster

 

Synopsis

To allow for Pisidian allies, and to make minor changes for the length of time Paionian allies are allowed.

 

Proposal

 

From 279 to 274 BC

Paionian allies - List Paionian (Book 1) (Note 1)

 

From 279 to 24 BC

Pisidian Allies. (Note 2)

Allied General. Irr Cv(O), or Irr LH(O), or Irr Bd(F) or Irr Aux(O).

Pisidian Horse. Irr LH(O) 0-2

Pisidian foot up to 1/6 Irr Bd (F), rest Irr Ax (O) 18-30

 

upgrade Irr Ax(O) to Irr Ps (S) up to 15.

 

Pisidian allies cannot be used with Scythed Chariots.

 

Justification

 

Note 1 '"War in the Hellenistic World' by Angelos Chaniotis, Page 90.

"Neoptolemos, a Ptolemaic general, was honoured in Tlos for saving the city

from a barbarian attack of Pisidians, Agrians, and Galatians in the 270s"

 

Sources given are SGO IV R Merkelbrach and J Stauber Steinepigramme aus

dem griechischen Osten. Band 4 Die Sudkuste Kleinasiens, Syrien und

Palaestina, Leipzig 2002

 

Vandorpe, K (2000) Negotiators' laws from rebellious Sagalassos in an early

Hellenistic inscription, in M Waelkens and L Loots (eds) Sagalassos V Report

on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns in 1996 and 1997. Leuven 489-508

 

The Agrians are already covered by the list as Paionians, the cut off date for Paionian allies is put at 274 BC as there is no evidence of them at the ‘Elephant Victory’ or after that date.

 

 

Note 2

The Pisidians seem to have cooperated with Galatians throughout the period given.

 

In A H M Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces he mentions a letter from Attalus, co-regent of Eumenes II to Amblada in North Eastern Pisidia. The city had a pretty rudimentary organisation, the letter was to the 'elders and the city' rather than to magistrates, council and people. To quote "Attalus remits the fine and releases the hostages which he had exacted as a penalty for the defection of the city in the Gallic war"

 

So Pisidians, whilst technically part of the Attalid 'empire' weren't

letting technicalities bother them. Similarly after Pergamene rule the Romans handed the Pisidians over to Cappadocia which couldn't cope with them. The Romans finally attached Pisidia to the province of Cilicia. Jones has a nice way of putting it, Cilicia seems to have been a standing military command rather than a regular territorial province. Under Roman direct 'rule' Pisidians were culled occasionally rather than ruled, and remained, with Pamphylia and Lycaonia as part of the Roman province of Cilicia until 36BC.

Antony handed them to Amyntas, whom he had just made king of Galatia,

and he did campaign vigorously, pretty well crushing them before being

murdered. It wasn't until about 6BC that the Homonadeis were finally crushed and the area became comparatively quiet.

 

Given that not of their rulers ever controlled them, I cannot really see reasons why Pisidians could not be part of a Galatian force whenever they wanted, pretty well as long as the army list lasts. However there is no evidence of them being present on the one occasion when we know scythed chariots were used.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.