Aetolian and Achaean armies

[eugene]

Does somebody know any researches about the armies of Achaean and Aetolian Leagues in the Hellenistic periods and their tactics? Are there any images of Achaean and Aetolian soldiers?

[MeinPanzer]

I am currently writing a long work on just this - the reforms of the Aetolian, Achaean, and Boeotian armies during the Hellenistic period. Unfortunately, there are no good sources relating to the militaries of these states during the Hellenistic period. The only real source I can recommend is Pantos A. Pantos, Ta sphragismata t?s ait?lik?s Kallipole?s: didaktorik? diatrib? (Athens: Philosophik? Schol? tou Panepistemiou Athen?n, 1985). Pantos publishes a sizeable archive of sealings from Callipolis in eastern Aetolia dating to c. 217 BC which include numerous ones depicting Aetolian arms and armour. Almost all the rest that we know of comes from Polybius and epigraphical sources.

[PMBardunias]

Ruben could surely tell you more than I- and will probably need to correct me here- but there are two major trends over the course of the 3rd century. First the armed forces of Greek poleis rearm in large part/in toto as Thureophoroi. The Boeotians do this in the 270s if I recall, the Acheans later, probably under Aratus (240s?). Since this date is after the Gallic invasion, these men would have used a gallic scutum, longche (1 or 2 6' multipurpose spears), and a sword- perhaps javelins as well. Aetolians may well have always had a significant light armed, non-hoplite, component. Essentially these are the arms that Rome won her world with, but the Greeks appear to have had none of the legion's tactical flexibility, holding to a largely linear formations.

The next shift is to rearm as sarissaphoroi. This is imposed on Boeotia in 245 by Antigonos Gonatas, while the Spartan King Cleomenes III rearms a large force he raises at Sparta directly from hoplites to sarissaphori in 227. Antigona Doson counters by rearming Megalopolitans. It was not until I think 407-5 that Philipoemen rearms the Achean thureophoroi as sarissaphoroi. If I recall he was sent Peltae by Ptolemy.

[Dutchhoplite]

This can help :wink:

link from old RAT

[Ghostmojo]

... It was not until I think 407-5 that Philipoemen rearms the Achean thureophoroi as sarissaphoroi. If I recall he was sent Peltae by Ptolemy.

Presumably sent back in time via The Time Tunnel, Paul?!!! :wink: It would have given him quite an advantage at the fag end of the Peloponnesian War had he chosen to get involved ... :lol:

[MeinPanzer]

Ruben could surely tell you more than I- and will probably need to correct me here- but there are two major trends over the course of the 3rd century. First the armed forces of Greek poleis rearm in large part/in toto as Thureophoroi. The Boeotians do this in the 270s if I recall, the Acheans later, probably under Aratus (240s?). Since this date is after the Gallic invasion, these men would have used a gallic scutum, longche (1 or 2 6' multipurpose spears), and a sword- perhaps javelins as well.

Aetolians may well have always had a significant light armed, non-hoplite, component. Essentially these are the arms that Rome won her world with, but the Greeks appear to have had none of the legion's tactical flexibility, holding to a largely linear formations.

The next shift is to rearm as sarissaphoroi. This is imposed on Boeotia in 245 by Antigonos Gonatas, while the Spartan King Cleomenes III rearms a large force he raises at Sparta directly from hoplites to sarissaphori in 227. Antigona Doson counters by rearming Megalopolitans. It was not until I think 407-5 that Philipoemen rearms the Achean thureophoroi as sarissaphoroi. If I recall he was sent Peltae by Ptolemy.

For the Boeotians, we have some information on their army at the time of the Galatian invasions in 279, but the period between then and 245, when they suffered a huge defeat at the hands of the Aetolians at Chaeronea, is somewhat hazy. What can be made out is that while they do not seem to have engaged in any actual campaigns, Aetolia was expanding toward their northwestern borders, which would undoubtedly have been threatening, but they were backed by the forces of Antigonus Gonatas, who was friendly to the Boeotian league. As such, they probably did not maintain a well-trained military. We do know that by the 260s the adoption of the thureos was widespread, and the hoplites of the league came to be armed with them (the military catalogues refer to these troops as thureaphoroi and hoplitai indifferently).

With the revolt of several areas bordering Boeotia from Antigonid control, the league was suddenly surrounded by instability and hostile factions. The two major historians on this topic disagree as to what came next. Feyel thought that the Boeotians were happy to keep their military as it was until they over confidently attacked an invading Aetolian force, losing 1,000 men and being forced into alliance with Aetolia. After this, he thought that they overhauled their military in an effort to recover from this crushing defeat and build themselves up in order to be able to regain their autonomy in the future, adopting a Macedonian organization of the military with phalangites. Roesch, however, thinks that the Boeotians had already begun to institute their military reform prior to 245 BC in an effort to bring their army up to snuff before the inevitable confrontation with the Aetolians. As he sees it, the league was overly confident with its new Macedonian-style force and, despite only having trained the soldiers of the army for a handful of years, engaged the Aetolians, lost, and then took the following years to recuperate the losses and build up its strength again.

I personally think that either option is likely, but I lean more towards the first, since I think that the evidence of a reform before 245 BC which Roesch relies on is too sketchy to be of use. Whenever the reform was brought into place, however, it was done so by the league itself, and not by Antigonus Gonatas.

As for Achaea and Aetolia, we have no real information as to when the thureos was introduced, and in the case of the latter whether the Macedonian phalanx was ever adopted as it was in Boeotia, Achaea, and Sparta. In Aetolia, we at least have the Aetolia-Acarnania alliance of c. 263, which outlines the components of the military, and though no explicit mention is made of the use of the thureos, a reference to men armed with hemithorakia likely refers to thorakitai, or thureophoroi equipped with cuirasses (though this is highly speculative). If this can be taken as indicating that the thureos was in use, then the Aetolians likely adopted it around the same time that the Boeotians did - which makes sense, since they were the ones most suited to using it.

[PMBardunias]

Whenever the reform was brought into place, however, it was done so by the league itself, and not by Antigonus Gonatas.

I stand corrected, which is good since I was mostly trying to poke you into responding :wink:

Presumably sent back in time via The Time Tunnel, Paul?!!!

Now, now it was late, be nice.

[Paullus Scipio]

A timeline ( a brief one) may be helpful to give a skeleton to the 3 C BC changes to troops in Greece following the 'Alexander' period.....

279 BC : Gauls invade Greece under Brennus. He defeats combined Greek force at Thermopylae, later invades Aetolia where we hear of him beating a force including 'a few Achaean Hoplites' (probably mercs). Brennus sacks Delphi, before retreating in the face of the full Boeotian and Athenian levies , sorely harassed by Aetolian, Phokian and Lokrian light troops/peltasts. The Aetolian army at this time ( as at Thermopylae) consisted of 7,000 Hoplites, 800 or so light troops and a few cavalry - a force optimised for defence of the pass, for Aetolia's home levy would include many more light troops.The Aetolian army included elite 'epilektoi', led by an 'epilektarchos'.

c.277-275 BC: Boeotia becomes the first City State to re-arm Hoplites as 'Thureophoroi' ; after experience in Gallic invasion. Mercenaries too seem quick to re-arm with the Thureos, and a standard type soon evolves, armed with 'Thureos', helmet, no body armour, two longchai/short dual purpose throwing/thrusting spears, or sometimes doru/long spear and javelins. These Thureophoroi continue to be referred to as 'Hoplitai' on many inscriptions. We have iconographic evidence for this change e.g. the tomb of Euboulos, depicting a Boeotian helmet and Thureos.Feyel (Polybe et l'histoire de la Beotie) discusses Boeotian inscriptions that describe young citizens being recruited into the thureophoroi - dating from about the 270s to 240s. It is likely that others, such as the Aetolians, heavily involved against the Gauls, also re-armed with the Thureos at this time or shortly after.

Also around this time the Achaean League underwent reforms, and may have adopted 'Thureophoroi' in place of polyglot forces of Hoplite militia and Mercenaries.

c.245 BC : Boeotia suffers defeat at the hands of Aetolia, and either before in anticipation of the conflict, or after, following alliance with Makedon arms 'Macedonian fashion' becoming 'peltophoroi'/sarissaphoroi. ( as Ruben recounts above - I too think it more likely the change came after, following failure of Boeotia's Thureophoroi against Aetolia's)

227 BC: King Kleomenes III of Sparta succeeds in carrying through Land Reforms, and creating a New Army by distributing these 'kleroi' to 4,000 newly created citizens, who are joined by some 2,000 or so Helots/serfs able to buy their way in. Kleomenes arms these 6,000 men in 'Macedonian' fashion. We have no record of a 'Thureos' phase at Sparta.

219 BC: The Achean league finds itself unable to hire Mercenaries, and a call-up of the citizen trops is invariably too slow to catch Aetolian raiders and some of the Achean cities raise a 'private' force of 30 foot and 50 horse as a 'fire brigade'. This embarrasses the League into re-organising its Military Forces in 217 BC when we hear of a new 'standing army' of 8,000 Mercenary foot and 500 horse, plus 3,000 Citizen foot (including 500 Megalopolitan phalangites)and 300 Horse. A citizen force of this size existed previously and fought at Sellasia in 222 BC. 1,000 Exiles from the ransacked city of Megalopolis were armed as Phalangites by the Macedonians in 222 BC also. Phalangites are mentioned at Kaphyai in 220 BC, but may not have been Achaean ( the 1,000 Megalopolitans did not arrive in time).
In 208 BC Philopoeman re-armed the Acaean citizens as Phalangites, though some Thureophoroi may have been retained. Plutarch speaks of the Achaean Thureophoroi thus( Life of Philoepomen IX) :

In the first place, however, he changed the faulty practice of the Achaeans in drawing up and arming their soldiers. For they used thureoi which were easily carried because they were so light, and yet were too narrow to protect the body; and spears which were much shorter than the Macedonian pike. For this reason they were effective in fighting at a long distance, because they were so lightly armed,[presumably carrying javelins too, or perhaps more likely, using the dual purpose longche/short spear] but when they came to close quarters with the enemy they were at a disadvantage. Moreover, a division of line and formation into cohorts was not customary with them, and since they employed a solid phalanx without either levelled line of spears or wall of interlocking shields such as the Macedonian phalanx presented, they were easily dislodged and scattered.

The army at this time also included a variety of mercenaries -'Tarantine' cavalry, Illyrians ( who would have been armed in native fashion as 'peltasts' with round shields from the south, or 'Thureophoroi' if from the north), Thracian cavalry in 197 BC, Cretans ( in 192 BC ), Cretans and Thracians in 183 BC.

[MeinPanzer]

Very good post overall, Paul, but just a few points.

The Aetolian army at this time ( as at Thermopylae) consisted of 7,000 Hoplites, 800 or so light troops and a few cavalry - a force optimised for defence of the pass, for Aetolia's home levy would include many more light troops.

Here I'll just quote from the paper I'm writing:

The number of psiloi given in the mss. is ninety, but this is clearly wrong; it has therefore been suggested that this should be read as 790, an emendation which has been widely accepted (see most recently Grainger, 100, 203-4). However, an emendation to nine thousand is preferable for three reasons. Firstly, Pausanias specifically states that the Aitolian contingent was the largest of all at Thermopylai, and we know that the Boiotian force numbered 10,500. The Aitolians therefore had to have fielded more than 3,500 troops on top of the seven thousand hoplites, and that could not have included a number of cavalry much greater than five hundred (Grainger 101, 207, 213), leaving a gap much greater than 790 men. Secondly, the number 790 would be oddly precise amid the sea of rounded figures which makes up the various contingents at Thermopylai. And thirdly, it hardly seems correct that the source of Pausanias would be so careful as to note to the tens the number of psiloi, troops who are often all but ignored in battle accounts, but not any contingents of hoplites or cavalry. A force of nine thousand psiloi and seven thousand hoplites seems much more in line with the composition of relief forces outlined in the treaty between Aitolia and Akarnania around two decades later and with the manpower numbers which can be estimated for the league from other accounts at this time.

c.277-275 BC: Boeotia becomes the first City State to re-arm Hoplites as 'Thureophoroi' ; after experience in Gallic invasion. Mercenaries too seem quick to re-arm with the Thureos, and a standard type soon evolves, armed with 'Thureos', helmet, no body armour, two longchai/short dual purpose throwing/thrusting spears, or sometimes doru/long spear and javelins. These Thureophoroi continue to be referred to as 'Hoplitai' on many inscriptions. We have iconographic evidence for this change e.g. the tomb of Euboulos, depicting a Boeotian helmet and Thureos.Feyel (Polybe et l'histoire de la Beotie) discusses Boeotian inscriptions that describe young citizens being recruited into the thureophoroi - dating from about the 270s to 240s. It is likely that others, such as the Aetolians, heavily involved against the Gauls, also re-armed with the Thureos at this time or shortly after.

What evidence is there that the Boeotians adopted the thureos between 277-275 BC, and furthermore what evidence is there that they were the first Greeks to adopt it? There are two military catalogues that refer to thureophoroi: IG VII, 2716, which is inscribed with the name of the federal archon Dorkylos, whose archonship Feyel dates to "probably 250-245 BC" (Feyel, 196), and SEG III, 351, which cannot be dated more accurately than "prior to 245 BC." We only really have solidly datable evidence for thureophoroi from Boeotia before the last quarter of the third century BC, but that doesn't mean that they were the first to adopt them - in fact, I suspect that the Aetolians were the first.

.245 BC : Boeotia suffers defeat at the hands of Aetolia, and either before in anticipation of the conflict, or after, following alliance with Makedon arms 'Macedonian fashion' becoming 'peltophoroi'/sarissaphoroi.

The reform of the military could not have been due to an alliance with the Antigonids either way the historians see it. The alliance with Demetrius II didn't occur until 239 BC, and the reform was in place already before then.

[Paullus Scipio]

An interesting post from your paper, Ruben, and clearly an emendation is warranted - though hordes of light troops were hardly ideal to defend a pass, or even the "back route"..... 7,000 Hoplites and 9,000 psiloi/peltasts would be in keeping with G.T. Griffith's estimate of total Aetolian manpower of 20,000, and the proportions sound right too.

Ruben wrote:

What evidence is there that the Boeotians adopted the thureos between 277-275 BC, and furthermore what evidence is there that they were the first Greeks to adopt it? There are two military catalogues that refer to thureophoroi: IG VII, 2716, which is inscribed with the name of the federal archon Dorkylos, whose archonship Feyel dates to "probably 250-245 BC" (Feyel, 196), and SEG III, 351, which cannot be dated more accurately than "prior to 245 BC." We only really have solidly datable evidence for thureophoroi from Boeotia before the last quarter of the third century BC, but that doesn't mean that they were the first to adopt them - in fact, I suspect that the Aetolians were the first.

Clearly, from your own post, the Boeotians/Thebans adopted the 'thureos' sometime prior to 250 BC thus making them the first city-state to do so, but not the first Greeks - like you I believe that was likely to be the Aetolian League,( who I wouldn't classify as a 'Poleis'/city-state, being a loose tribal confederation) in the aftermath of the Gallic defeat, and that they were then followed by their neighbours and relations, the Boeotians/Thebans. An adoption/change to an enemy weapon is always likely to be in the immediate aftermath of a war, rather than 20 years or more later, so knowing the change happened between 279 BC and 250 BC, I plumped for an approximate date nearer the beginning than the end ( hence circa 277-275 BC ), allowing them to follow their Aetolian neighbours .

The reform of the military could not have been due to an alliance with the Antigonids either way the historians see it. The alliance with Demetrius II didn't occur until 239 BC, and the reform was in place already before then.

Quite right.......I can only claim slightly faulty memory lapse. After their defeat by Aetolia at Chaeronea in 245 BC, the Boetians became forced "allies" of Aetolia. In 238 BC when Aetolia and Demetrius of Macedon came to blows, both Boeotia and Eastern Locris threw off the "alliance" with Aetolia, and Boeotia became an ally of Macedon against Aetolia. (Until the death of Antigonus in 239 BC, Aetolia had been an ally of Macedon too.)

On the same principle given above, the likely time for the Boeotians to arm 'Macedonian fashion' will have been shortly after their defeat at Aetolian hands in 245 BC.

[MeinPanzer]

Clearly, from your own post, the Boeotians/Thebans adopted the 'thureos' sometime prior to 250 BC thus making them the first city-state to do so, but not the first Greeks - like you I believe that was likely to be the Aetolian League,( who I wouldn't classify as a 'Poleis'/city-state, being a loose tribal confederation) in the aftermath of the Gallic defeat, and that they were then followed by their neighbours and relations, the Boeotians/Thebans.

Not to nitpick, but this is an arbitrary distinction. Both Aetolia and Boeotia at this time were federal leagues, and Aetolia was beginning to become increasingly urbanized (see Callipolis, for instance, the sack of which the Aetolians reacted to strongly to). Obviously the Aetolians were not nearly as urbanized as the Boeotians, but they were both confederacies composed of city states.

[Paullus Scipio]

That's not 'nit-picking' ? :lol: :lol: ....since we are being pedantic, I would definitely distinguish between the two. 'Boeotia', like 'Lakedaemon' or 'Attica' consisted of one large city that had subordinated the surrounding towns and villages - Thebes, Sparta and Athens respectively.

The Leagues were different. The Aetolian League grew from a loose tribal alliance and its towns/villages ( none could really be classified as a 'city' on the scale of Athens or Sparta, or even lesser cities such as Corinth, Argos, Sicyon or Mantinea) with no dominant single large city/poleis.

Similarly, the Achaean League had no single dominant city.They originally formed 12 separate self-governing communities. In 251 Aratus, the Sicyonian, brought round his native town to the Achaean league, and got himself elected head of the confederacy ( but Sicyon did not 'dominate' the League). Corinth was freed from its Macedonian garrison in 243 by League forces, led by Aratus of Sicyon, and was admitted a member. Megara, Epidaurus, Troezen, and the Arcadian cities joined soon after. In 208 Philipœmen, of Megalopolis, succeeded Aratus as general of the league, but even Megalopolis ( "The Great City") after joining, could not be said to 'dominate' the League in the same way as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Argos etc dominated theirs.....

[MeinPanzer]

That's not 'nit-picking' ? :lol: :lol: ....since we are being pedantic, I would definitely distinguish between the two. 'Boeotia', like 'Lakedaemon' or 'Attica' consisted of one large city that had subordinated the surrounding towns and villages - Thebes, Sparta and Athens respectively.

This was the case for the Boeotian League in a number of its incarnations before the sack of Thebes in 316. After that, not only was the population of Thebes greatly diminished, but its political influence was as well. The Hellenistic Boeotian League operated on a representational system of one vote and three elected members of the sunedrion per city, which effectively quashed any chance of Thebes swamping the assembly as it had in the past. This meant that a smaller city like Coronea had exactly the same representation and power as Thebes did in the federal government, and all the evidence we have shows that in many ways - chief among them militarily - the League was largely egalitarian (if not entirely democratic), and measures were taken to prevent any one bloc from rising to power.

The Leagues were different. The Aetolian League grew from a loose tribal alliance and its towns/villages ( none could really be classified as a 'city' on the scale of Athens or Sparta, or even lesser cities such as Corinth, Argos, Sicyon or Mantinea) with no dominant single large city/poleis.

Yes, and this was the case up to the late fourth century. However, beginning at the outset of the third century, when Aetolia began her steady expansionism which continued through much of that century, she also became steadily urbanized. These cities were of course not the same size as those of other major regions of Greece, but they were "official" poleis nonetheless, and the league became less and less tribal as the century went on (this was in large part necessary in order to properly incorporate new members of the league). In fact, this is indirectly shown in the Aetolian defense against the Galatians: mustering a force of more than 7,000 hoplites either requires a significant population of middle class farmers or a significant population of middle class urban dwellers, and Aetolia certainly didn't have the former.

[Paullus Scipio]

We digress it seems.... :lol: :lol:
Ruben wrote:

This was the case for the Boeotian League in a number of its incarnations before the sack of Thebes in 316.

Your turn for a 'slip' on dates. Alexander sacked Thebes in 335 BC.....Cassander 'restored it' and repopulated it in 316 BC....( not to 'nit-pick of course D lol: ) The sacking could not have been all that significant, following the restoration, and Orchomenus, Plataea, and Thespiae had all also suffered sackings in previous generations too.The Boeotian League had always been nominally equal, with each city having a 'Boeotarch', sending equal numbers of representatives etc but nevertheless Thebes 'dominated', and by virtue of being the largest, was probably still the pre-dominant city in the third century, even if diminished somewhat........but anyway, that's another topic :wink:

These cities were of course not the same size as those of other major regions of Greece, but they were "official" poleis nonetheless, and the league became less and less tribal as the century went on (this was in large part necessary in order to properly incorporate new members of the league). In fact, this is indirectly shown in the Aetolian defense against the Galatians: mustering a force of more than 7,000 hoplites either requires a significant population of middle class farmers or a significant population of middle class urban dwellers, and Aetolia certainly didn't have the former.

...just about every village was an official 'poleis', but like I said not of the same order of magnitude as the major ones referred to.
Aetolia certainly didn't have an 'urban' middle class either - one has only to look at how the Aetolians made money to see that - but it did have a LOT of small towns, able to raise a few hundred Hoplites each, and acquired more and larger towns as it expanded....

[MeinPanzer]

Your turn for a 'slip' on dates. Alexander sacked Thebes in 335 BC.....Cassander 'restored it' and repopulated it in 316 BC....( not to 'nit-pick of course D lol: ) The sacking could not have been all that significant, following the restoration, and Orchomenus, Plataea, and Thespiae had all also suffered sackings in previous generations too.The Boeotian League had always been nominally equal, with each city having a 'Boeotarch', sending equal numbers of representatives etc but nevertheless Thebes 'dominated', and by virtue of being the largest, was probably still the pre-dominant city in the third century, even if diminished somewhat........but anyway, that's another topic :wink:

Whoops, that's my mistake on the date. The difference between the earlier leagues and the Hellenistic one is that in the Hellenistic one those smaller cities joined in the siege of Thebes, and while it was just an abandoned ruin, they re-established the league elsewhere on their own terms. Your assertion that the Hellenistic league was just business as usual is not true - the league was always nominally equal and representative, but there were no checks in place to prevent a major city from swamping the government. Voting was done by heads, so Thebes, which of course controlled a number of lesser cities and villages in its chora and had by far the largest urban population of any Boeotian city, always had de facto control of the assembly. However, in the Hellenistic league it was done by city, so one city, one vote, thus removing any chance of Thebes dominating the assembly. And all the evidence points to Thebes not being the dominant party in the government.

...just about every village was an official 'poleis', but like I said not of the same order of magnitude as the major ones referred to.

No, I'm not referring to nominal poleis. I'm referring to newly expanded cities like Callipolis which are referred to in the sources by foreign writers as proper cities, many of which have been (and still are being) thoroughly excavated and were clearly actual cities. Thankfully new epigraphic and archaeological evidence is correcting much of the bias of our ancient literary sources.

Aetolia certainly didn't have an 'urban' middle class either - one has only to look at how the Aetolians made money to see that - but it did have a LOT of small towns, able to raise a few hundred Hoplites each, and acquired more and larger towns as it expanded....

Why couldn't they have had an urban middle class? All the evidence in the Hellenistic period points to there being so, and I don't buy the traditional "lots of small towns able to raise a few hoplites each" idea. Paul, your opinions sound a bit outdated, and I would point you to Joseph Scholten's "The Politics of Plunder" for a great synthesis of the growth and actual prosperity of the league. As to your comment referring to the banditry of the Aetolians, I would point you to John Grainger's recent book on the Aetolian League, which, though it swings too much the other way, does a good job of deflating much of the myth of Aetolian backwardness.