Crowd-Sourced Civ: Seleucids

[Mythos_Ruler]

The Seleucids definitely used cataphracts at Magnesia and Panion. About the "Silver Shield Legionaire" from RTW, yeah, we're not going to use that unit. However, I do have a "Roman Thorakites" spec'd in the civ profile with "Romanized" equipment.

http://trac.wildfire...iv%3A_Seleucids

Seleucid King Antiochus IV had 5k bronze shield pikemen, 10k gold shield pikemen, 5k silver shield pikemen, and 5k troops equipped in the "Roman manner" at the Daphne parade in 166 BC.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Seleucid_army

[Mythos_Ruler]

[nylki]

Regarding the wonder:

If you are in need of any detail photos of the Pergamon Altar, I happen to live in Berlin and could take some photos. But on the other hand, there are probably loads of tourist photos anyways on flickr etc.

Edited September 25, 2013 by nylki

[The Crooked Philosopher]

You're mistaken, Mike. I mean those Cataphract cavalry in Rome: Total War and the graffiti in Dura Europos:

[The Crooked Philosopher]

Here's a list of Europa Barbarorum's Seleucid unit roster from EB website: http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_arche-seleukeia_units.html

[Mythos_Ruler]

The Seleucids definitely had cataphracts. They didn't look like Parthian cataphracts from the 2nd c. AD, but they were still cataphracts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Army#Kataphraktoi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panium

[juanl1d]

why is the Silver Shield better as the Gold Shield pikeman? it sounds a bit weird

[Lion.Kanzen]

Because Philip IV oracle, tell him use Silver and he can conquer everiyhing.

'Romanized' infantry[edit source]

In 166 BC, at the Daphne Parade under Antiochus IV, the Argyraspides corps is only seen to be 5,000 strong. However 5,000 troops armed in the Roman fashion are present and they are described as being in the prime of their life, perhaps denoting their elite nature.[11] It is possible that the missing 5,000 men of the Argyraspides were the 5,000 'Romanized' infantry marching alongside them. The training of a segment of the royal guard in "Roman' methods was probably down to several factors. Firstly Antiochus IV had 'spent part of his early life in Rome and had acquired rather an excessive admiration for Rome's power and methods".[12] Secondly the future wars that the Seleucids might be fighting would probably be in the eastern satrapies against mobile enemies and other large areas of land. Training troops in this way would add to the overall efficiency and capability of the army and make it more manoeuvrable. Indeed the 'Romanized' troops are seen facing the Maccabees at the Battle of Beth Zechariah in 162 BC.[13] Thirdly the defeat of the Antigonids at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC was a great culture shock, showing the complete destruction of the Macedonian military system at the hands of the Roman legion.

It has been suggested that the fact that these 5,000 men are marching at the head of the army was meant to show Antiochus IV's intention of reforming the entire Seleucid army along Roman lines, though whether or not this complete reform actually took place is unknown.[14] The true extent of the adoption of Roman techniques is unknown, some have suggested that the infantry are in fact more likely to be Thureophoroi or Thorakitai, troops armed with an oval shield of the Celtic type, a thrusting spear and javelins.[15]

[gudo]

I'm thinking it might be better to include a civilization that's not another hellenistic/successor civ. Why not instead do a civ that's much more different from the ones we already have? Perhaps the Kushan Empire, which had contacts with the Han Chinese and Rome overlapped in time with the Maurayans. Or, perhaps it might be best to do the Han. We could build off the existing work of the Rise of the East.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Year, im with you in thst, Kushan was one most important Empires that had contact with Parthians/Sassanids, China(Han), Mauryan/Gupta and Rome.

I will edit this with map of first century, civilization.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

[Lion.Kanzen]

Diodotus, governor for the Bactrian territory, asserted independence in around 245 BC, although the exact date is far from certain, to form the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. This kingdom was characterized by a rich Hellenistic culture, and was to continue its domination of Bactria until around 125 BC, when it was overrun by the invasion of northern nomads. One of the Greco-Bactrian kings, Demetrius I of Bactria, invaded India around 180 BC to form the Greco-Indian kingdom, lasting until around AD 20.

The Seleucid satrap of Parthia, named Andragoras, first claimed independence, in a parallel to the secession of his Bactrian neighbour. Soon after however, a Parthian tribal chief called Arsaces invaded the Parthian territory around 238 BC to form the Arsacid Dynasty — the starting point of the powerful Parthian Empire.

By the time Antiochus II's son Seleucus II Callinicus came to the throne around 246 BC, the Seleucids seemed to be at a low ebb indeed. Seleucus II was soon dramatically defeated in the Third Syrian War against Ptolemy III of Egypt and then had to fight a civil war against his own brother Antiochus Hierax. Taking advantage of this distraction, Bactria and Parthia seceded from the empire. In Asia Minor too, the Seleucid dynasty seemed to be losing control — Gauls had fully established themselves in Galatia, semi-independent semi-Hellenized kingdoms had sprung up in Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia, and the city of Pergamum in the west was asserting its independence under the Attalid Dynasty.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

Diadoch Map

Edited September 25, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

Roman influence on Hellenistic warfare[edit]

Reforms in the late Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies re-organised them and tried to add some Roman aspects to formations. This however would not be out of place as some Roman style tactics were used by Pyrrhus of Epirus in his campaigns against the Romans and by Antigonus Gonatas at Sellasia in 222 BC. Pyrrhus and Antigonus both placed units of lighter troops in between the units of their phalanx. This was after Pyrrhus had 'observed the formation of the Roman legions and noticed how mobile they were and how unwieldy were his own forces...He therefore adapted his own formation to the Roman model, deploying light mobile detachments alongside the phalanx'.[14] Philopoemen too used this tactic at Mantinea in 207 BC, making his phalanx more flexible.[15] Much is made of Polybius' description of 5,000 Seleucid infantryman in 166 BC armed in the 'Roman' fashion at a parade at Daphne. 'Romanized' troops are also mentioned in battle against the Maccabee's.[16] These reforms were probably undertaken by Antiochus IV because of several factors. Firstly Antiochus IV had 'had spent part of his early life in Rome and had acquired rather an excessive admiration for Rome's power and methods'.[17] Secondly to re-train the army in this manner would allow it to perform better in the Seleucid empire's eastern satrapies beyond the river Tigris, which of high importance to Seleucid rulers from Antiochus III through to Demetrius II. Thirdly changing their equipment and training would add to their fighting capability and efficiency, hence making the army more maneuverable. Stelae from Hermopolis shows a Ptolemaic unit which showed them having a standard-bearer and other staff attached to the unit. This unit was like a Roman Maniple, being composed of 2 smaller units led by a Hekatontarch (i.e. a Centurion). This title of Hekatontarch appeared around the 150's BC. As well as this Asclepiodotus describes in his 'Tactica' a new institution, the Syntagma. The Syntagma had a standard-bearer, other staff and was composed of 2 smaller units led by Hekatontarchs. The Phalangarkhia, also described by Asclepiodotus, was about the size of a Roman Legion in strength. The potential Roman influence would have been great. In Ptolemaic Egypt Roman adventurers and veterans are found commonly serving under the Ptolemies. Romans are found in Ptolemaic service as early as 252/1 BC.[18] The Ptolemaic army was odd in that out of all the Hellenistic armies the Ptolemaic was the only army where you could find Romans in Greek service. As Sekunda suggests 'such individuals would have spread knowledge of Roman military systems within the Ptolemaic military and political establishment'.[19] However there are numerous aspects of the Roman army that were not carried into the Ptolemaic and Seleucid ones. For example the differentiation of the Hastati, Principes and Triarii, or the integration of light-armed troops into the infantry structure. Hence because of this, there was no Hellenistic equivalent to the Cohort. Instead of this there was a system of larger units which had no relation to Roman organization

. In terms of equipment, most of these so-called 'Romanized' troops did not abandon their traditional spear for a sword and pila, weapons so vital to the Roman way of war. In this sense, we can only assume that the Hellenistic kingdoms did reform and re-organize their troops in some regards along Roman lines, but these appear to be superficial at best. By the time of Mithridates VI we are told that the Pontic army had troops armed in the Roman fashion and by 86 BC Mithridates had created an army of 120,000 such troops.[20] This was after an alliance between Mithridates and Sertorius, an enemy of Sulla, in which Sertorius sent a military mission to reorganize Mithridates' army along Roman lines.[21] These 'Roman' troops fought alongside the Pontic phalanx. 'Legions' of this sort are described by Julius Caesar in his campaigns against Juba in Numidia [22] and alongside Deiotarus of Galatia whilst in the Middle East.[23] If anything, these forces, as described by N. Sekunda, are nothing more than ersatz-legions.

http://en.wikipedia....lenistic_armies

Edited September 25, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

Most cavalry units of the Hellenistic era were moderately armored and would be armed with javelins or/and lances. Cataphracts were introduced to the Hellenistic world by the Seleucids in the late 3rd century BC and are attested to have been used, probably in a lighter version and for a very limited time, also by the kingdom of Pergamon. Antiochus III was able to field an extraordinary 6.000 men in Magnesia, the first testimony of cavalry gaining victory over the closed ordered ranks of a competent infantry, yet to no avail.

The Seleucids also had moderate access to horse archers from their eastern borders, although they never fielded them in large numbers. The Ptolemies also deployed heavy armored lancers, never cataphracts, probably because of the high temperatures prevalent in their empire. In Macedonia, armored lancers were also deployed, after the tradition of Alexander's Hetairoi, yet their capability could not compare to this of their predecessors. In the rest of the Greek world, cavalry maintained its traditional equipment of javelin and short lance. Apart from the cavalry types used by the Greeks, the Hellenistic kingdoms also used cavalry from subordinate and allied barbarian states, which varied in quality, armor and equipment. Mercenary cavalry troops were also employed including Thracians, Armenians, and even Berbers.

No cavalry formation is unfortunately mentioned in the existent descriptions of cavalry battles, but all ancient Greek tactical manuals, including Asclepiodotus' Techne Taktike written in the 1st century BC, clearly and in detail describe the wedge and the rhombus formations, stating that they were in use at least at the time of their compilation beside the more common square and rectangular formations. Thus, we have to accept the probability that they were used throughout the Hellenistic era.

Other formations attested and probably used were the Tarantenic circle, employed by the Tarentines proper and the Scythian formation, attested in use by the Scythian horse archers. Both were skirmishing formations and facilitated continuous harassment while at the same time providing the required mobility to avoid enemy charge

[Lion.Kanzen]

may be this Faction Deserves an Embassy system.

[Lion.Kanzen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acra_(fortress)

For Fortress

Antiochus IV Epiphanes ascended the Seleucid throne in 175 BCE. Shortly afterward, the Emperor was petitioned by Jason for appointment to the position of High Priest of Israel—an office occupied by his brother Onias III. Jason, himself thoroughly Hellenized, furthermore promised to increase the tribute paid by the city and to establish within it the infrastructure of a Greek Polis, including a gymnasium and an ephebion.[4] Jason's petition was granted, yet after a three-year rule he was ousted by Antiochus and forced to flee to Ammon.[5][6] In the meantime, Antiochus IV had launched two invasions of Egypt, in 170 BCE and again in 169 BCE, and routed the Ptolemaic armies.[7][8][9] Antiochus' victories were short-lived. His intent to unify the Seleucid and Ptolemic kingdoms alarmed the rapidly expanding Roman state, which demanded that he withdraw his forces from Egypt.[9][10] With Antiochus engaged in Egypt, a false rumor spread in Jerusalem that he had been killed. In the ensuing uncertainty, Jason gathered a force of 1,000 followers and attempted to take Jerusalem by storm. Although the attack was repulsed, when word of the fighting reached Antiochus in Egypt, he suspected his Judean subjects of exploiting his setback as an opportunity to revolt. In 168 BCE, Antiochus IV Epiphanes marched on and sacked Jerusalem, looting the temple treasury and killing thousands of its residents.[11][12][13] Reversing his father's policy, Antiochus IV issued decrees outlawing traditional Jewish rites and persecuting observant Jews. Temple rituals were discontinued, Jewish observance of Sabbath prohibited, and circumcision outlawed.[14][15]

Herodian Citadels

The three towers of the Herodian citadel. From left to right, the Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne

The Antonia was Jerusalem's main fortress, dominating the Temple Mount and housing the city's garrison. It was built by Herod over the Hasmonean Baris before 31 BCE and was named after Mark Antony. It shared the same features as the Hellenistic tetrapyrgion, although rectangular. In each of its corners stood a tower, one of which was taller than the others.[52]

The Herodian Citadel stood at the present site of the Tower of David. Herod built the citadel, sometimes referred to as the "Towers Citadel", on a hill already fortified in Hasmonean times. Herod built three towers at the site, naming them Hyppicus, Phasael and Mariamne, after his friend, brother and wife. It was at the Hyppicus that the "first wall", approaching from the south, turns east towards the Temple Mount, and also where the "third wall", constructed in the mid-1st century CE, would meet the "first wall".

Josephus provides a detailed description of the towers in the fifth book of his Bellum Judaicum, commenting:

“ These were for largeness, beauty, and strength beyond all that were in the habitable earth. ”

—Josephus, The Jewish War V, 156.[53]

.And we have the Legionaries XD

Edited September 26, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

http://artefacts-berlin.de/uruk-seleucid/index.php?l=eng

3d source

And a ilustración

More romanized...left guys

Edited September 26, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

Syrian Archer?

[The Crooked Philosopher]

These archers looks like Cretan than Syrian, you can find a proper Syrian Archer arms and armor in Brassey's History of Uniform Roman Army Wars of the Empire by Graham Sumner.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Syrian Archer?

These archers looks like Cretan than Syrian, you can find a proper Syrian Archer arms and armor in Brassey's History of Uniform Roman Army Wars of the Empire by Graham Sumner.

I would think "Syrian" archers of the period would have a rather Hellenistic look to them. You're right though that these look a lot like Cretans (the Cretans hired themselves out to both the Ptolemies and Seleucids as mercenaries).

[Lion.Kanzen]

Arquitecture:

The original city of Seleucus was laid out in imitation of the grid plan of Alexandria by the architect Xenarius. Libanius describes the first building and arrangement of this city (i. p. 300. 17). The citadel was on Mt. Silpius and the city lay mainly on the low ground to the north, fringing the river. Two great colonnaded streets intersected in the centre. Shortly afterwards a second quarter was laid out, probably on the east and by Antiochus I, which, from an expression of Strabo, appears to have been the native, as contrasted with the Greek, town. It was enclosed by a wall of its own.

In the Orontes, north of the city, lay a large island, and on this Seleucus II Callinicus began a third walled "city," which was finished by Antiochus III. A fourth and last quarter was added by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC); and thenceforth Antioch was known as Tetrapolis. From west to east the whole was about 6 kilometres (4 miles) in diameter and little less from north to south, this area including many large gardens.

The new city was populated by a mix of local settlers that Athenians brought from the nearby city of Antigonia, Macedonians, and Jews (who were given full status from the beginning). The total free population of Antioch at its foundation has been estimated at between 17,000 and 25,000, not including slaves and native settlers.[2] During the late Hellenistic period and Early Roman period, Antioch's population reached its peak of over 500,000 inhabitants (estimates vary from 400,000 to 600,000) and was the third largest city in the world after Rome and Alexandria. By the 4th century, Antioch's declining population was about 200,000 according to Chrysostom, a figure which again does not include slaves.

About 6 kilometres (4 miles) west and beyond the suburb Heraclea lay the paradise of Daphne, a park of woods and waters, in the midst of which rose a great temple to the Pythian Apollo, also founded by Seleucus I and enriched with a cult-statue of the god, as Musagetes, by Bryaxis. A companion sanctuary of Hecate was constructed underground by Diocletian. The beauty and the lax morals of Daphne were celebrated all over the western world; and indeed Antioch as a whole shared in both these titles to fame. Its amenities awoke both the enthusiasm and the scorn of many writers of antiquity.

Antioch became the capital and court-city of the western Seleucid empire under Antiochus I, its counterpart in the east being Seleucia on the Tigris; but its paramount importance dates from the battle of Ancyra (240 BC), which shifted the Seleucid centre of gravity from Asia Minor, and led indirectly to the rise of Pergamum.

The Seleucids reigned from Antioch.[4] We know little of it in the Hellenistic period, apart from Syria, all our information coming from authors of the late Roman time. Among its great Greek buildings we hear only of the theatre, of which substructures still remain on the flank of Silpius, and of the royal palace, probably situated on the island. It enjoyed a reputation for letters and the arts (Cicero pro Archia, 3); but the only names of distinction in these pursuits during the Seleucid period, that have come down to us, are Apollophanes, the Stoic, and one Phoebus, a writer on dreams. The mass of the population seems to have been only superficially Hellenic, and to have spoken Aramaic in non-official life[dubious – discuss][citation needed]. The nicknames which they gave to their later kings were Aramaic; and, except Apollo and Daphne, the great divinities of north Syria seem to have remained essentially native, such as the "Persian Artemis" of Meroe and Atargatis of Hierapolis Bambyce.

The epithet, "Golden," suggests that the external appearance of Antioch was impressive, but the city needed constant restoration owing to the seismic disturbances to which the district has always been subjected. The first great earthquake in recorded history was related by the native chronicler John Malalas. It occurred in 148 BC and did immense damage.

Local politics were turbulent. In the many dissensions of the Seleucid house the population took sides, and frequently rose in rebellion, for example against Alexander Balas in 147 BC, and Demetrius II in 129 BC. The latter, enlisting a body of Jews, punished his capital with fire and sword. In the last struggles of the Seleucid house, Antioch turned against its feeble rulers, invited Tigranes of Armenia to occupy the city in 83 BC, tried to unseat Antiochus XIII in 65 BC, and petitioned Rome against his restoration in the following year. Its wish prevailed, and it passed with Syria to the Roman Republic in 64 BC, but remained a civitas libera.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

[Lion.Kanzen]

Alternate Seleucid Emblem

[Lion.Kanzen]

Like the Scythians, the Syrians use the powerful Eastern composite bow, and are skilled archers. They are better disciplined than the Scythians, but they too are not always pleased to be serving as a subject people in the ranks of Seleucia...