08-08-2010, 09:15 AM
Having finished the book I can say Nicholas Sekunda concludes that by the time of the Civil Wars all the remaining Hellenistic kingdoms' armies seem to have been rearmed and reequiped "in the Roman manner". The process, as the title of the book suggests, began with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms in the mid-second century BC. In Egypt the Gabiniani wielded considerable power and imported Gallic and Germanic auxiliaries into the country to help prop up the regime. Sekunda also mentions that Dieotarus, tetrarch of Galatia until his death circa 40 BC, had organized two legions of Galatians equipped and trained along Roman lines.
The archaeological evidence, such as it is, doesn't support the idea that Roman style helmets began to be adopted by the Hellenistic armies. Some Montefortinos found in Greece seem to date to the Macedonian Wars - too early a period to make such a suggestion. So, Hellenistic helmets seem to have continued despite the Romanization process. Sekunda then cites Plutarch (Life of Lucullus, 7.4) who states that Mithradates had swords and shields of Roman type prepared and a force of 120,000 men trained in Roman tactics. In 69 BC the Armenians drew up an army of 150,000 - 'some in cohorts and others in phalanxes' (Plutarch, Life of Lucullus 26.6).
So, the typical Hellenistic infantryman around the time of Caesar would seem to have appeared Roman in most aspects with some lingering Hellenistic elements (helmets, belts, clothing, footwear, etc..). Regarding armor I doubt that the Romanized troops wore Roman style hamata with the doublet. The Roman influence on armor is simply the wide adoption of it by most Hellenistic troops who hitherto wore little or none. The shields and swords were probably identical in appearence to Roman issued ones. At least that's what I conclude from the book which is largely based on scant evidence.
~Theo
The archaeological evidence, such as it is, doesn't support the idea that Roman style helmets began to be adopted by the Hellenistic armies. Some Montefortinos found in Greece seem to date to the Macedonian Wars - too early a period to make such a suggestion. So, Hellenistic helmets seem to have continued despite the Romanization process. Sekunda then cites Plutarch (Life of Lucullus, 7.4) who states that Mithradates had swords and shields of Roman type prepared and a force of 120,000 men trained in Roman tactics. In 69 BC the Armenians drew up an army of 150,000 - 'some in cohorts and others in phalanxes' (Plutarch, Life of Lucullus 26.6).
So, the typical Hellenistic infantryman around the time of Caesar would seem to have appeared Roman in most aspects with some lingering Hellenistic elements (helmets, belts, clothing, footwear, etc..). Regarding armor I doubt that the Romanized troops wore Roman style hamata with the doublet. The Roman influence on armor is simply the wide adoption of it by most Hellenistic troops who hitherto wore little or none. The shields and swords were probably identical in appearence to Roman issued ones. At least that's what I conclude from the book which is largely based on scant evidence.
~Theo
Jaime
