11-13-2009, 03:24 AM
Very good post overall, Paul, but just a few points.
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.
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.
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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote:.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.
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
