Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Need some information about Mantinea 207 BCE
#1
Ave
Where can I get some information about this battle that was fought between Sparta and the Achaian League? Wiki doesn't give out much data about this almost forgotten event.
Specifically what I'm curious about is whether the Spartan army of this era was in any way different from the ones that fought in the Persian and Peloponnesian wars as far as uniforms, equipment, tactics etc. Did the Spartans copy the Seleucid armies by incorporating elephants?
Thanks in advance.
Cry \'\'\'\'Havoc\'\'\'\', and let slip the dogs of war
Imad
Reply
#2
I don't have any books nearby, but as a starter (with hints to the ancient sources) a short report about Mantineia should be given in "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" by Duncan Head.

In the years after 227 the Spartans not only incorporated some new persons as citizens but also adopted the sarissa. At Mantineia therefore you can imagine mainly a pike + pelte armed phalanx, not the one with aspis and dory. The dress of the Spartans seems to have remained roughly the same long into the time of the Roman empire. So perhaps in 207 they still wore a chiton (hardly surprising), the red chlamys and had the ugly long beards (although king Kleomenes is shown clean shaven on some coins). Body armour (if worn) and helmets would be the contemporary ones, composite armour, perhaps bronze muscle cuirasses for the wealthier and officers and hellenistic helmets, perhaps even some late examples of pilos helmets (I think no Corinthians :wink: ). As far as I know nobody knows something for sure about Spartan equipment of the time.

The Spartans had no elephants at hand afaik. It is nearly impossible to breed a herd in Europe (only the Romans succeeded with it) and imports from India or Africa were difficult to achieve. Trained elephants were great battle units but extremely expensive (too expensive) for such a small power like Sparte.

I'm sure, soon some others will give you more and deeper informations.
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply
#3
Quote: and had the ugly long beards

Off topic,I know,but the only "ugly" beards are those shown in the Osprey book "The Spartans".Greek art has always(almost) depicted impressive beards and the general notion was that the beard was a "jewel" 8)
And beards was possibly a habit in Sparta,like in other states,too,but as always uniformity even in this is inaccurate.Thus cleomenes could nicely have been beardless.
And sorry Wolfgang for saying things you already know :lol:
Khaire
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
#4
The "Retra of Lykoyrgos" had been abandoned by Hellenistic times
Kleomenes tried to re-indroduced it.

The bulk of his troops would be renfranchised citizens pikemen since it is easy to train them and equip them. Officers and frontrankes would have armor and would probably appear as in "Retra" red clothes and beards.

His mercenaries would be thyreophoroi or even Cretan archers.

Kind regards
Reply
#5
Quote:perhaps even some late examples of pilos helmets (I think no Corinthians Wink
Yeah I believe the Corinthian types were falling out of favour as early as the 5th century B.C.E. Surprising how many depictions of hoplites in popular culture still show them wearing Corinthian helmets at this late stage.
Cry \'\'\'\'Havoc\'\'\'\', and let slip the dogs of war
Imad
Reply
#6
Quote:Where can I get some information about this battle that was fought between Sparta and the Achaian League?

Your best source is Plutarch's life of Philopoemen. Polybios must have written about it, but I don't recall the chapter.

These were not the Spartans of old. Machinidas was a Tarantine tyrant and usurper. After Sellasia the already small number of Spartiates was devastated, so as mentioned this was mostly a mercenary and "new" spartiate army.

No elephants on either side, but Spartans had faced elephatns when Pyrrus invaded Laconia and they defeated him. Since Areus minted coins in the firts half of the 3rd C BC, Spartan Kings had made some show of being like the Diodachi around them. Machinidas himself fought on horseback!

As to the beards, that osprey book did a great diservice. Perhaps the only thing we know was neat about a Spartan was his beard- he combed it you'll recall. A better model might be the flowing beards seen on assyrian and near eastern statuary. By this point any "true" spartans would have been fairly rich and as has been mentioned the days of Agoge and the Rhetra were gone- to rise again as a macabre attraction for wealthy romans.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#7
Quote:
geala:3h6qvla4 Wrote:and had the ugly long beards
...
And sorry Wolfgang for saying things you already know :lol:
Khaire
Giannis

No, no, of course you are right to correct it. I have an unexplainable animosity against the classical Spartans and could not withstand the seduction to say unqualified malicious things about them. :lol: :wink:
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply
#8
Quote:Where can I get some information about this battle that was fought between Sparta and the Achaian League?

The main source is Polyibus XI.11-18, which you can find online in English at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html

There is a briefer acount in Plutarch's life of Philopoimen at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html

Quote:Specifically what I'm curious about is whether the Spartan army of this era was in any way different from the ones that fought in the Persian and Peloponnesian wars as far as uniforms, equipment, tactics etc. Did the Spartans copy the Seleucid armies by incorporating elephants?

The Spartans adopted the Macedonian sarissa in the 220s. See Polybius' acocunt of the Sellasia campaign (in Book 2) and Plutarch's life of Agis and Cleomenes.

(No elephants, though.)
cheers,
Duncan
Reply
#9
I forgot to mention the most interesting feature of the battle. Machinidas, for the first time on a battlefield, employed artillery against the Achean phalanx. Previously artillery had been used in battles that had some character of siege- across a river or defending heights. The spartans did make use of a deep ditch, so perhaps that is a siege-like element.

I'm sure everyone has had the thought that you could shoot-up an advancing phalanx with artillery. I don't think we know how much it contributed, but the Spartans did initially win out against the opposing phalanx.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#10
Nope Phokians had used artillery against Philip II and it is the only time that the beat him.
Kind regards
Reply
#11
Quote:Machinidas, for the first time on a battlefield, employed artillery against the Achean phalanx.
Deployed, rather than employed! Smile It doesn't seem to have been used in the battle.

Quote:Phokians had used artillery against Philip II and it is the only time that the beat him.
It is possible (some of us would say probable Smile ) that Polyaenus' "stone-throwers" were humans rather than machines!
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#12
In the STRATEGIMATA 30 mnae weight is mentioned so the propabilities are in favor of artillery.

There is a tendency to depict close order infantry almost unarmored in the late 4th early 3rd century. It is a generalization. Weapons were handed down through successive generations and those who could afford to arm themselves did so. No one could rule out the Corinthnian or "Illyric" helmet to appear alongside newer types although in very small numbers.

Kind regards
Reply
#13
Quote:Nope Phokians had used artillery against Philip II and it is the only time that the beat him.


It is this instance I was referring to when I noted they had been used to defend heights, making the battle almost a siege, not a standard battlefield. interesting that these may have been men throwing them, I did not know that.


Quote:Deployed, rather than employed! It doesn't seem to have been used in the battle.

Duncan, I'm very curious about this. What is the arguement for them not being used? In know that you have written extensively on artillery so anything you teach me is much appreciated.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#14
Quote:interesting that these may have been men throwing them, I did not know that.

Polyaenus has a reputation for being somewhat erratic, so anything he says must be weighed up carefully. In addition, he doesn't have a great reputation for artillery knowledge. One of his few passages about catapults places them in the hands of Cambyses in 525 BC, which is clearly a mistake.

In the Onomarchus passage, he doesn't specifically mention catapults, and Stefanos' reference to 30 mina weight does not appear in the text that I have seen -- perhaps he has a variant? A straightforward reading of the text would imply men throwing rocks, which (we know) was a perfectly acceptable ancient battle tactic.

In the absence of reliable evidence, it's a matter of weighing up probabilities. We really must question the report of stone-projecting catapults in the hands of a minor Greek warlord at such an early date when not even Philip II had catapults. (Remember: Philip was remembered down through the ages for his sponsorship of siege equipment. He is most probably the driving force behind the development of catapults in Greece.)

Quote:What is the arguement for them not being used?
Simply that they aren't mentioned again in the battle, which seems to go off in another direction. The likelihood is that they were rapidly over-run. If they had been at all successful, Polybius would surely have said so. But they simply disappear from the account of the battle.

This is entirely to be expected, if you envisage the scene! No other ancient commander even considered using artillery in the ebb-and-flow of battle, unless they were firmly entrenched (as Sulla and Caesar appear to have done). Even then, their slow rate of operation can't have contributed much, and they would quickly become redundant if the action moved elsewhere.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#15
I believe that the only time elephants ever appeared in the region of Sparta was when Pyrrhus tried to knock off Demetrius' the Besieger's son, and failed, because he delayed attacking til morning, so the spartan women and children dug trenches and buried wagons in the ground as a palisade all night long, effectively keeping the elephants out. This was a couple decades after Alexander, so the famous Spartan days were a century past I believe.

Specifically what I'm curious about is whether the Spartan army of this era was in any way different from the ones that fought in the Persian and Peloponnesian wars as far as uniforms, equipment, tactics etc. Did the Spartans copy the Seleucid armies by incorporating elephants?
Thanks in advance.[/quote]
John Kistler
writer, businessman, elephant lover
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Question Polybius or Plutarch for 3rd Mantinea ? Michael Collins 3 1,226 10-18-2019, 10:41 AM
Last Post: Michael Collins
  A bungled deployment at 1st Mantinea? Michael Collins 0 540 08-28-2019, 08:44 AM
Last Post: Michael Collins
  spartan army at Mantinea 418 BC Marcvs75 64 18,043 05-20-2008, 11:59 AM
Last Post: Paralus

Forum Jump: