Aetolian and Achaean armies

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

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............
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 Paul, your opinions sound a bit outdated, and I would point you to Joseph Scholten's "The Politics of Plunder" for a great synthesis of the growth and actual prosperity of the league.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.

I have Grainger's work, but not Scholten's....and I did not advocate the old view that Aetolia's wealth accumulated as a result of piracy and brigandage.... If Callipolis was a 'real' city with walls and public buildings/temples, it was nevertheless not in the same 'league' ( :lol: :lol: ) as an Athens or Corinth, and any 'urban middle class' was correspondingly smaller.... the 7,000 Hoplites didn't come from one or even a couple of cities, but many. Like I said, Aetolia was 'relatively' poor for a Greek state.....as her lack of abundant coinage shows - no Gold mines like Macedon, nor Silver mines like Athens.

Anyway, like I said, we digress too far, let us get back on topic......

[Paralus]

I'm not certain that we should limit the Aetolian army to only 7,000 "hoplites" for 279. The figure of 7,000 seems almost conventional: Pausanias 10.20.3 (the passage you're referring to I suppose) states that the Aetolians sent 7,000 hoplites amongst their forces and Diodorus, for the Lamian war, states (18.9.5) they supplied Leosthenes with 7,000 soldiers.

Later though, as Perdiccas faces the coalition of Ptolemy, Craterus and Antipater, Aetolia franks its alliance with Perdiccas by invading Thessaly with an army of 12,000 foot. In 315 the Aetolians send 3,000 to lay siege to Agrinium (18.38.1). Seven odd years further down the track Plod-perchon, having been more than usually dilatory in the Peloponnese, prevails upon the Aetolians to join him in his march upon Macedonia. Plod Polyperchon enters Macedonia, the soon to be departed Heracles in tow, with “more than 20,000 foot” (20.20ff). It is a fair bet the number was, for once, larger than the sources allow and better than even odds that the Aetolians provided a goodly amount. Certainly old Plod doesn’t seem to have had access to large forces at this time having only Sicyon and Corinth, the only two cities named in the sources, in his “possession”.

All of which is to say that Aetolia, like the poleis, committed forces it deemed necessary. The 7,000 recorded by Pausanias and Diodorus may well reflect the “full force” of approximately two thirds or so of their complete roll – as was usually the case with armies raised by the poleis (Athens, for example, sent 5,000 to Lamia).

[Paralus]

I'm not certain that we should limit the Aetolian army to only 7,000 "hoplites" for 279. The figure of 7,000 seems almost conventional: Pausanias 10.20.3 (the passage you're referring to I suppose) states that the Aetolians sent 7,000 hoplites amongst their forces and Diodorus, for the Lamian war, states (18.9.5) they supplied Leosthenes with 7,000 soldiers.

Later though, as Perdiccas faces the coalition of Ptolemy, Craterus and Antipater, Aetolia franks its alliance with Perdiccas by invading Thessaly with an army of 12,000 foot. In 315 the Aetolians send 3,000 to lay siege to Agrinium (18.38.1). Seven odd years further down the track Plod-perchon, having been more dilatory than normal in the Peloponnese, prevails upon the Aetolians to join him in his march upon Macedonia. Plod Polyperchon enters Macedonia, the soon to be departed Heracles in tow, with “more than 20,000 foot” (20.20ff). It is a fair bet the number was, for once, larger than the sources allow and better than even odds that the Aetolians provided a goodly amount. Certainly old Plod doesn’t seem to have had access to large forces at this time having only Sicyon and Corinth, the only two cities named in the sources, in his “possession”.

All of which is to say that Aetolia, like the poleis, committed forces it deemed necessary. The 7,000 recorded by Pausanias and Diodorus may well reflect the “full force” of approximately two thirds or so of their complete roll – as was usually the case with armies raised by the poleis. Athens, for example, sent 5,000 to Lamia. (see Doron Mendels, Aetolia 331-301: Frustration, Political power and Survival)

[MeinPanzer]

I'm not certain that we should limit the Aetolian army to only 7,000 "hoplites" for 279. The figure of 7,000 seems almost conventional: Pausanias 10.20.3 (the passage you're referring to I suppose) states that the Aetolians sent 7,000 hoplites amongst their forces and Diodorus, for the Lamian war, states (18.9.5) they supplied Leosthenes with 7,000 soldiers.

Later though, as Perdiccas faces the coalition of Ptolemy, Craterus and Antipater, Aetolia franks its alliance with Perdiccas by invading Thessaly with an army of 12,000 foot. In 315 the Aetolians send 3,000 to lay siege to Agrinium (18.38.1). Seven odd years further down the track Plod-perchon, having been more than usually dilatory in the Peloponnese, prevails upon the Aetolians to join him in his march upon Macedonia. Plod Polyperchon enters Macedonia, the soon to be departed Heracles in tow, with “more than 20,000 foot” (20.20ff). It is a fair bet the number was, for once, larger than the sources allow and better than even odds that the Aetolians provided a goodly amount. Certainly old Plod doesn’t seem to have had access to large forces at this time having only Sicyon and Corinth, the only two cities named in the sources, in his “possession”.

All of which is to say that Aetolia, like the poleis, committed forces it deemed necessary. The 7,000 recorded by Pausanias and Diodorus may well reflect the “full force” of approximately two thirds or so of their complete roll – as was usually the case with armies raised by the poleis (Athens, for example, sent 5,000 to Lamia).

I don't see anything "conventional" about the figure of 7,000 - it certainly wasn't a standard figure in Greek literature, and it fits in perfectly well with the other figures we find in the histories relating to Aetolian manpower. There are two major points against seeing the 7,000 hoplites (no need for quotes around the word, I think) as less than the full force of hoplites available. Firstly, this was recognized by Aetolia as a major crisis, and they sent a correspondingly large force in order to try and stave off the destruction of most of their population, leaving little reason to assume that they only mustered a fraction of their hoplites. And secondly, the Greeks understood well that hoplites would have been the ideal troops to defend Thermopylae, and yet would not have been effective in defending mountainous Aetolia, so there would have been little utility in keeping them in reserve.

When we examine the scope of manpower available to the League throughout its main history, it becomes evident that this number is entirely congruous:

12,000 infantry shortly after 321.

Over 16,000 in 279.

The army fielded at Chaeronea must have been around 10,000 in 245.

12,800 infantry in 218.

12,000 Aetolian infantry employed abroad in various capacities between 199 and 197.

Of these, the mobilization to defend against the Galatian invasion is clearly the largest, since we hear of the young and old defending against the force which diverted into Aetolia, implying that 16,000 was the largest number of troops the League was able to viably muster at that time. The light armed troops were best suited to defending Aetolia from the hillforts, and so they must have comprised a significant portion of the manpower which is not totally reflected in these numbers - the odd snippets of a few hundred men here and there which we hear of being stationed in hillforts gives the impression that there could have been a good few thousand more in Aetolia at all times, and between 199 and 197 the league "loaned out" 12,000 infantry, which they certainly would not have done if they did not have more men available to defend the patris.

[Paralus]

I don't see anything "conventional" about the figure of 7,000 - it certainly wasn't a standard figure in Greek literature, and it fits in perfectly well with the other figures we find in the histories relating to Aetolian manpower.

Hence the seems almost prior to conventional. The figures - forty years apart - can, of course, simply reinforce one another.

The "convention" was more in relation to states sending some two thirds or so to most actions. Whereas I understand that the invasion was a major crisis I was not suggesting that sending 7,000 amounted to Aetolia having only mustered a fraction of their hoplites. If I implied "a fraction" then it was rather a large fraction: "two thirds or so of their complete roll".

The crunch at Chaeronea, for example, was a "crisis" for Athens. Diodorus (from memory: at the office minus books and Lacus Curtius is down) describes the Athenians as mustering those up to the age of fifty from the ten tribes. Only seven of these were sent from Attica; the remaining three deputed to "homeland defence". There is a similar call up for the Lamian war . Here Athens can hardly have expected leniency from Antipater had it failed. Although Diodorus is not replete with the same detail, it is reasonable to assume a similar situation applied (given 5,000).

Aetolia may have left a force at home or may not have. Either way, it seemed - at this time - more successful when it took the "rugged" parts and utilised light troops in ambuscades (as you allude to). From recollection that was what transpired about Parnassos as the Celts were eventually dealt with.

7,000 could well be the roundabout number of hoplites available to Aetolia in the first quarter of the third century. It is just possible, though, that it might represent the bulk. Trouble is we don't have any real population / stratification guestimates for the Federation (that I'm aware of) as the previous discussion between youself and Paul Mac shows.

How far along is your paper?

[MeinPanzer]

Hence the seems almost prior to conventional. The figures - forty years apart - can, of course, simply reinforce one another.

The "convention" was more in relation to states sending some two thirds or so to most actions. Whereas I understand that the invasion was a major crisis I was not suggesting that sending 7,000 amounted to Aetolia having only mustered a fraction of their hoplites. If I implied "a fraction" then it was rather a large fraction: "two thirds or so of their complete roll".

Sorry, my mistake, I mistook your statement about convention to mean that the figure was a literary convention.

The crunch at Chaeronea, for example, was a "crisis" for Athens. Diodorus (from memory: at the office minus books and Lacus Curtius is down) describes the Athenians as mustering those up to the age of fifty from the ten tribes. Only seven of these were sent from Attica; the remaining three deputed to "homeland defence". There is a similar call up for the Lamian war . Here Athens can hardly have expected leniency from Antipater had it failed. Although Diodorus is not replete with the same detail, it is reasonable to assume a similar situation applied (given 5,000).

Aetolia may have left a force at home or may not have. Either way, it seemed - at this time - more successful when it took the "rugged" parts and utilised light troops in ambuscades (as you allude to). From recollection that was what transpired about Parnassos as the Celts were eventually dealt with.

I certainly think the Aetolians kept a reserve force - Pausanias states that after they caught wind of the ravaging of Callipolis, the League "mobilized the men of military age from all the cities at home; and even those too old for service, their fighting spirit roused by the crisis, were in the ranks, and their very women gladly served with them, being even more enraged against the Gauls than were the men" (10.22.5). The implication is that they were so offended that old men and women joined, but it's clear that there were some men of military age who did not accompany the contingent sent to Thermopylae (which was returning from the pass when these forces were mustered in Aetolia).

However, it seems very unlikely that the Aetolians would have left hoplites behind in their homeland, since they would not be well suited to defending a large country from strategically-located hillforts. Rather, they would have been much more useful at the pass, and so I see no reason why the 7,000 men mentioned would not be the approximate maximum available.

How far along is your paper?

I wrote a section reappraising the armament of the Macedonian phalanx with some new archaeological evidence which I wanted to include to illuminate more fully its adoption by the states of Greece in the late 3rd c. BC, but it ended up being too long (18 pages), so I've decided to remove it and maybe use it for something else in the future. For now I'm up to 25 pages and getting close to finishing the section on the Aetolians, while the bulk of the section on the Boeotians is completed, and the section on Achaea still needs a lot of work.

[Paralus]

I would, of course, dearly love to read it. Let's know where and when it publishes.

Perhaps had Krateros lived he'd have saved you all the effort effort...

[Paullus Scipio]

To flesh out a few more details about the Aetolian armed forces;
In 322 BC, following Alexander's death, the Athenians rebelled to throw off "the yoke of Macedon" and the Aetolians, Lokrians and Phkians joined them.The Athenians and Aetolians each contributed 7,000 men to block Thermopylae, but of the Aetolians, it is not known how many were Hoplites and how many lighter troops.

The Makedones responded by invading Aetolia next year (321 BC) with an army of 30,000 Infantry and 2,500 cavalry - overwhelming force - and the Aetolians wisely relied on a strategy of abandoning those towns and cities which were vulnerable, and defending their forts, fortresses and walled cities. They also raised an army of the 'men in full vigour' (i.e. not including oldest and youngest) of 10,000 men ( Diodorus XVIII.24.2 ), and were saved by an outbreak of civil war among the 'successors/makedones'.

A little later, we hear of them as allies of Perdikas against Antipater raising 12,000 foot and 400 horse, again, this force will not have been the full strength army, for many garrisons, probably mostly the young and old will have been left to defend against such enemies as the fierce Epirots and Akarnanians.This seems to have been the largest single field force ever raised ( with the possible exception of Thermopylae, if Ruben's emendment to "9,000" light troops is correct....I have some doubts, though it is plausible, because Aetolia had grown, now incorporating the city of Herakleion, as well as swallowing Lokris and Oitia, which would have increased Hoplite forces.Perhaps the emendation from "90" should read "900" as this would be a reasonable mix to defend Thermopylae, and leave plenty of 'light troops' to man the many garrisons ? Otherwise this would denude Aetolia of men, given that never do we hear of an army of over 15,000 or so, and Griffith's estimate of absolute maximum manpower as 20,000 - however there is then the difficulty of them being the largest force present as Ruben pointed out earlier :? ? )

Throughout these Macedonian, and later, Roman, wars the Aetolians were invariably heavily outnumbered and relied on their defence of cities and forts with gaarisons, seldom risking their field army, but rather dividing it up into raiding forces - thus for example, when Philip V of Macedon is forced to withdraw in 218 BC after sacking the main city of Thermus, we hear of a force of 3,000 sent to harass him, and a 'block force' in the city of Stratos of another 3,000 foot, 400 horse and, uniquely, 500 Cretan mercenaries ( Aetolia was, as I have remarked, relatively poor and does not seem to have employed mercenaries, even when desperately in need of more troops). This gives a total of 6,900, but earlier Polybius tells us that 'half the army' was with Skopas, raiding/invading Thessaly as a counter stroke, so the full Aetolian Field Army will have numbered something like 14,000 men, plus the young and old. (Pol V.13.3-7)

During the wars involving Rome, first as ally, then as enemy, we hear of forces of 6,000 foot and 400 horse - and a sub-force of these of 2,000 foot and the horse swollen to 500.(197 BC). The Romans seem to have been disappointed in the size of this force, hence in compensation, exaggerated claims by the Aetolians to have 'won' the battle of Kynoskephalae.

Against the Romans, around 192 BC on, we hear of forces of 3,000 foot and 230 horse, and later 3,000 foot and 200 horse in Thessaly; a force of 4,000 is sent to Thermopylae and 2,000 to Ambrakia in 189. These generally attacked Roman allies rather than the Romans themselves. The Aetolians have clearly adopted their usual tactics - harassing forces while defending their forts and walled cities. The Romans attack Herakleia, Lamia, Hypata, Naupactus, Amphissa and Ambrakia, but only the first two are captured....a very creditable performance against the formidable Romans, even if the Aetolians didn't dare face Rome in the field.

Notice that whereas at the beginning of this period, we hear of separate forces of light troops and Hoplites, later we hear only of 'infantry' or 'foot' implying they are homogenous - perhaps a confirmatory "straw in the wind" that they converted to Thureophoroi after the Gallic invasion. It is often assumed that because Aetolia was poor and mountainous, that the bulk of her army was 'light troops', but that they could raise 7,000 hoplites, roughly half their army, tells us otherwise. Thureophoroi; if you will,peltasts re-armed with heavier shields, would seem to fit the bill exactly to meet Aetolia's need for relatively cheap troops able to carry out the function of skirmisher and line soldier.

As to Aetolian naval forces, these are all but non-existent, giving the lie to several ancient sources that imply Aetolia lived by State-run piracy - notably Polybius, who, being Achaean, was rather hostile.

[keravnos]

In Greek, it was written, ???????.
Therefore the proper transliteration is "Boiotia" as has also been used.
Boeotia is latin. I guess the difference in calling the same city Peking or its native Beijing.
The chinese call their city Beijing, present day Greeks call their city Boiotia, as ancient Greeks did.

Look at the following, if you want...

Btw, excellent thread. Thank you for taking the time to create it.

[MeinPanzer]

In Greek, it was written, ???????.
Therefore the proper transliteration is "Boiotia" as has also been used.
Boeotia is latin. I guess the difference in calling the same city Peking or its native Beijing.
The chinese call their city Beijing, present day Greeks call their city Boiotia, as ancient Greeks did.

Look at the following, if you want...

Btw, excellent thread. Thank you for taking the time to create it.

People regularly write the latinised forms of Greek words on these boards, since it is common practice to do so. As long as it's consistent, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing so.

[eugene]

Does somebody has an access to this book:

Pantos A. Pantos, Ta sphragismata t?s ait?lik?s Kallipole?s: didaktorik? diatrib? (Athens: Philosophik? Schol? tou Panepistemiou Athen?n, 1985).

[eugene]

Are there some recent researches on this theme?

[Duncan Head]

Eugene, you could try
http://otworzksiazke.pl/images/ksiazki/t...deracy.pdf
if you haven't seen it.