Jump to content

Crowd-Sourced Civ: Seleucids

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Pick the one you want sele_hero_helmet_seleucus_nikator_v2.7z

What if... what if... at the start of the match, similar to Hyrule Conquest, you choose a hero to lead your civ. That hero gives you different choices at each phase up.

Reforms are the kind of pair tech that I would like to see in 0 a.d, not a thing like choose between 5% attack or 5% speed. Military colonies are better with HP and Attack? With the new models it s

Posted Images

How looks The seleucid capital?

Seleucia Early Seleucid Near East

The ancient Akkadian city of Babylon served as an Achaemenid provincial capital, and later the de facto capital of Alexander the Great’s Macedonian Empire. During this short period Babylon continued to flourish, yet following Alexander’s death, the city's fortunes declined precipitously, largely due to the Wars of the Diadochi. Thus, to reflect the emerging new world order and revitalize the sagging economy of Mesopotamian, the successor Seleucus Nicator founded his namesake, Seleucia in 307 BC and dedicated it as the capital of his empire. The remnant that still resided at Babylon was moved the short distance northeast, to help build the new city and became its base population, along with a cross section of Hellenized, as well as a mix of Middle and Near Eastern peoples. At its height, Seleucia boasted a residential population equal to that of Alexandria. The first view of the Seleucia model is from the south at a high angle, and is looking north.

The Tigris River (flowing from top to bottom) is situated within the left center portion of the model. The light green area to the left of this represents irrigated agricultural fields. On the high ground a short distance further to the east, is the large town of Ctesiphon, which initially was used as a secondary river port to transfer traffic from the east bank of the Tigris to Seleucia itself.

Returning to Seleucia one will note that for the most part, it is bounded on the north and east by the Tigris and a major canal that had been extended from the Euphrates River, on the south. Immediately west of the city, another large canal was diverted from the Euphrates canal, to flow directly through this huge Hellenistic metropolis. Providing a significant water source for the city’s center, this diversion canal effectively divided Seleucia north and south along its alignment. Within the city this feature was crossed by numerous bridges placed to correspond to the grid and block residential layout of the city. The gray sections within the city walls represents the residential space and area occupied by other buildings. The following view is high and is from the southeast, looking northwest over the Tigris River.

Commercially, Seleucia was serviced by two large river ports built by dredging the Tigris, thus creating a large artificial bay. Without doubt material recovered from this area was used in the construction of the city. A third port was established along the Euphrates canal just prior to its confluence with the Tigris. Overall, the city’s defensive architecture consists of two wall systems that separated the main residential/governmental/religious area (central area) from the primary commercial area (area outside the central area). A very small dot is located at the base of the tower immedately left of the canal that divided the city. This is an adult human provided for a sense of scale. The finial view is from the southwest at a low angle, looking northeast.

Within the interior wall system the city was laid out much like Alexandria, using a street grid and residential apartment house blocks. The structure placed within the interior wall system (upper right) is a temple complex built on the Hellenistic model with an entry house, an enclosing rectangular portico facing into an plaza, and a central Megaron like structure. As with Carthage and Alexandria, Seleucia was positioned to take advantage of a number of significant water obstacles. These effectively would have forced an attacker to advance on a very narrow front, particularly from the west. Also as a side note, the canals outside the city were most likely crossed by numerous bridges.

Seleucia, as such, was founded in about 305 BC, when an earlier city was enlarged and dedicated as the first capital of the Seleucid Empire by Seleucus I Nicator. Seleucus was one of the generals of Alexander the Great who, after Alexander's death, divided his empire among themselves.[1] Although Seleucus soon moved his main capital to Antioch, in northern Syria, Seleucia became an important center of trade, Hellenistic culture, and regional government under the Seleucids. The city was populated by Greeks, Syrians and Jews.

Standing at the confluence of the Tigris River with a major canal from the Euphrates, Seleucia was placed to receive traffic from both great waterways. During the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, it was one of the great Hellenistic cities, comparable to Alexandria in Egypt, and greater than Syrian Antioch. Excavations indicate that the walls of the city enclosed an area of at least 550 hectares (1,400 acres). Based on this size, the population has been estimated to number over 100,000 initially and probably more later. Its surrounding region might have supported half a million people.

Polybius (5,52ff) uses the Macedonian peliganes for the council of Seleucia, which implies a Macedonian colony, consistent with its rise to prominence under Seleucus I; Pausanias (1,16) records that Seleucus also settled Babylonians there. Archaeological finds support the presence of a large population not of Greek culture.

In 141 BC, the Parthians under Mithridates I conquered the city, and Seleucia became the western capital of the Parthian Empire. Tacitus described its walls, and mentioned that it was, even under Parthian rule, a fully Hellenistic city. Ancient texts claim that the city had 600,000 inhabitants, and was ruled by a senate of 300 people. It was clearly one of the largest cities in the Western world; only Rome, Alexandria and possibly Antioch were more populous.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to post
Share on other sites


See it, you mister can try to find sources too.

And yes is not Syrian but you know how looks? ( not auxiliary roman right?)

Pd, I'm saving in imgur because a lot pics can be lost in other server.

Be careful he is Philosopher may be he say you : "Stand out of my light." Crooked seriously I want see your sources. And why are obsessed with Cataphracts?
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you guys appreciate this.







Studia z historii starozytnej

Studies in Ancient History

edited by Edward Da^browa






of an international conference

in honour of Professor Jozef Wolski

held at the Jagiellonian University,

Cracow, in September 1996

edited by Edward D^browa



Michat Gawlikowski

Wlodz'milerz Lengauer


Barbara Widlak


Elzbieta Szcz^sniak

© Copyright by

Uniwersytet Jagielloriski

Wydanie I, Krakow 1998

Ksiqzka zostaia sfinansowana

przez Uniwersytet Jagielloriski

ISBN 83-233-1140-4

Dystrybucja: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloriskiego

ul. Grodzka 26, 31-044 Krakow, Poland

tel. (012) 422-10-33 w. 1177, 1410

fax (012) 422-63-06

e-mail: wydaw@adm.uj.edu.pl http://www.uj.edu.pl

Konto: BPH SA IV/O Krakow

nr 10601389-731210-27000-400101

Druk; Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagielloriskiego

31-1 10 Krakow, Czapskich 4 Tel./fax. 422-59-41


Preface 7

List of participants 9

Abbreviations 11

P. A r n a u d, Les guerres parthiques de Gabinius et de Crassus et la politique occidentale

des Parthes Arsacides entre 70 et 53 av. J.-C 13

E. Dqbrowa, Philhellen. Mithridate I er et les Grecs 35

F. Dorna Metzger, Funerary Buildings at Hatra 45

M. L. E i 1 a n d, Parthians and Romans at Nineveh 55

Th. Harrison, Aeschylus, Atossa and Athens 69

A. Invernizzi, Osservazioni in margine al problema della religione della

Mesopotamia ellenizzata 87

M. Mielczarek, Cataphracts- a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war 101

V. P. Nikonorov, Apollodorus of Artemita and the date of his Parthica revisited 107

M.J. Olbrycht, Das Arsakidenreich zwischen der mediterranen Welt und Innerasien 123

P. Riedlberger, Die Restauration von Chosroes II 161

Z. Rubin, The Roman Empire in the Res Gestae Divi Saporis - the Mediterranean World

in Sasanian propaganda 177

R. Venco Ricciardi, Pictorial graffiti in the city of Hatra 187

M. Whitby, An international symposium? Ion of Chios fr. 27 and the margins

of the Delian League 207

J. Wiesehofer, Geschenke, Gewurze und Gedanken. Uberlegungen zu den Beziehungen

zwischen Seleukiden und Mauryas 225


Krakow 1998

Mariusz Mielczarek

Cataphracts - a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war

In the 2nd century B.C. important changes in the Seleucid art of war are visible. On the one

hand, the Romanization of the tactics, organization and military equipment of the Seleucid

army took place, especially after 168. 1 On the other, the experience of Antiochus Ill's eastern

campaign bore fruit in the acceptance of some eastern elements into Seleucid military prac-

tice. Among these elements can be placed the heavy armoured cavalry named cataphracts. Of

all the armies of Hellenistic rulers the cataphracts are documented only in the Seleucid army.

Livy's reference to the presence in Antiochus Ill's army of horsemen which he terms

cataphracts (Livy 35.48, 37.40) constitutes the first reference to the employment of this type

of heavy armoured cavalry by the Seleucids. At Magnesia, 2 3000 cataphracts were placed on

each wing of Antiochus Ill's army (Livy 37.40), Thus in Livy's account (37.40) the Seleucid

cataphracts are represented as already well organized and relatively numerous formation. The

course of the above mentioned battle, 3 especially the events on the left wing of the Antiochus

Ill's army, indicate that the horsemen were well trained.

There is no evidence that cataphracts were present in the Seleucid army before Antiochus

Ill's reign. Accordingly, he should be credited with this innovation, which in all probability

should be linked with his eastern expedition in 210-206 B,C, and with the experience gained

during battles with the eastern enemy, above all the Parthians. 4 The introduction of these

cataphracts into Antiochus' army may have occured during or shortly after the campaign, yet

it certainly took place before 195 B.C., and an earlier date - before 200 B.C. - is still possible.

The KaT<x<j)paKToi 1 {kkoi who fought at Panion and are mentioned by Polybius (16.18),

familiar with military matters and with the meaning of the term cataphract (indicated by his

description of the Daphne parade - Polyb. 30.25 [buttner-Wobst]), may be regarded as the

first indication that a new cavalry unit had been created in the Seleucid army. 5 However

Polybius' account (Polyb. 16.18) is not precise enough to allow us certainly in this matter.

1 Polyb. 30.25 [buttner-Wobst] - 5000 soldiers armed in the Roman style at Daphne. See Bar-Kochva 1976;

Sekunda 1994.

2 App, Syr. 32; Florus 1.24. On the battle; Bar-Kochva 1976: 164-73.

3 App., Syr. 32. Appian questions the tactics of Antiochus III, commenting that the Syrian king set his hopes

on cavalry, and against all rules deprived the phalanx of its leading role on the battlefield of Magnesia.

4 Cf. Tul. Val., Alex. Mac. 1.35 [Kaebler]. See Tarn 1930: 76; Bar-Kochva 1976: 75; Michalak 1987: 75. Also

Schmitt 1964: 45 ff. On the Parthian cataphracts: Mielczarek 1993: passim - the older, rich literature here.

5 Mielczarek 1993: 68; Walbank 1979: 452.

102 Makiusz Mielczarek

After Antiochus Ill's reign cataphracts remained a permanent element in the Seleucid

army for at least 40 years or so, Almost nothing is known about Seleucus IV s army, yet we

know that 1,500 cataphracts (Polyb. 30.25 [biittner-Wobst]) took part in the parade at Daphne

organized by Antiochus IV. 6 This figure, however, need not signify that the number of cata-

phracts had been reduced, for only select detachments took part in the spectacle. 7 It seems

worthwhile to mention that the military part of the celebration is posibly connected with

preparations for the Parthian campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes - this observation was made

by W.W. Tarn and has since been made repeatedly. 8

In spite of the scarcity of evidence on the subject, it is difficult to doubt the eastern origin

of Seleucid cataphracts. Only in the East could the Seleucids recognize the value of this heavy

armoured cavalry. 9 On the other hand is not clear when and how troops of this type developed

among the Parthians. How much did the Parthians contribute to the creation of this type of

unit and how essential was the influence of the specific structure of the Parthian army upon its


What we know about the Parthian heavy armoured cavalry called cataphracts, comes first

of all from accounts of military confrontations of the Arsacids with Rome. 10 Therefore most

data refer to events that happened over 100 years later than Antiochus Ill's campaign or the

Daphne parade.

On the basis of Roman accounts, it is possible to characterize Parthian cataphracts as

warriors fighting in close column order; wearing scale armour with additional arm- and leg-

defences, using a long spear, which was their only offensive weapon, and riding armoured

horses. 11 This picture is above all based on Plutarch's description of the cataphracts who

fought at Carrhae in 53 B.C. (Plut., Crass. 19-25), a description in all probability derived

from Nicolaos of Damascus. 12 The few pictorial representations surviving, including the

Gotarzes relief from Bisutum, dating to the 1st c. A.D., 13 and finds of arms, mostly defensive

(above all those from OldNisa 14 ) indicate that Plutarch's description accords with reality,though

the repertoire of arms and armour was subj ect to various changes the purpose of which was to

protect the warrior and the horse as fully as possible. This is noticeable when we compare

Plutarch's descriptions of the cataphracts, probably Parthian, who fought at Tigranocerta in

69 B.C. (?\u\. f Lucull. 27.6, 28.2-5) and at Carrhae in 53 B.C. (Plut., Crass. 24.3, 24.5, 25.4).

It is difficult to find corroboration for the presence of similarly armed soldiers in the

Seleucid army. This is probably the most important reason for postulating an eastern origin

for the warriors who fought as cataphracts on the side of the Seleucids. This proposal is

repeatedly made in modern scholarly literature although no supporting evidence can be found

in the ancient literary sources.

6 Ath. 194 d-f; Walbank 1979: 448-453. See Tarn 1966: 183 ff.; Nterkholm 1966: 97-100; Bunge 1976: 53-

71; Mielczarek 1992: 4-12.

7 Cf. 1 Mace. 3.39; Markholm 1966: 150-54; Mielczarek 1992: 6; Sekunda 1994: 21.

8 Tarn 1966: 183-84.

*See Mielczarek 1993.

10 Cf. for instance: Schippman 1980: 5 ff.; Wolski 1979: 17-25; Wolski 1983: 137-45; also Mielczarek 1993:

19 ff.

11 Mielczarek 1993:41 ff.

12 Peter 1865: 109-12; cf. Adcock 1966: 51.

13 See Kawami 1987: 37-43; 157-59.

14 Pugachenkova 1966: 33-34.

Cataphracts - a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war 103

Differences in the arms and armour of troops operating in the east and the west of the

Seleucid state is theoretically possible. Some elements of defensive armour found at Ai Kha-

noum 15 show certain similarities with those of the Parthian cataphracts described by Roman

writers. This is also similar to that represented by a bronze figurines of a warrior found in

Syria, now in the Louvre, 16 one of them identified by M.Rostovtzeff as "one of the governors

or vassals of the Parthian king of the late Hellenistic period". 17 But the armour from Ai Kha-

noum and that shown on the Syrian bronze statue are nearly identical with what is shown on

the Balustrade Reliefs of the Temple of Athena Polias Nikephoros in Pergamum, dating in all

probability to the 2nd c. B.C., though an earlier date has been suggested. 18 There is a consen-

sus of opinion that the Pergamum reliefs show military equipment of the defeated opponents

of the Attalids - and thus including the Seleucids. It is fairly easy to discern equipment be-

longing to warriors who can undoubtably be regarded as heavy armoured cavalry. In this

respects it is worthwhile mentioning Xenophon's reference to the advantage of a fully armed

horsemen. 19

Descriptions of the activities of Parthian cataphracts in the literary accounts of the 1st

century B.C. seem to indicate that they fought in close order. Plutarch's {Crass, ISA) descrip-

tion of the battle of Carrhae and the pictoral evidence, notably the above mentioned Gotarzes

relief from Bisutum, show that the long spear was held by the warrior in the right hand along

the horse's flank. This way of using the spear was especially effective against infantrymen,

even those armed with a long pike. Later the spear was held across the horse's neck to the left

of its head, allowing the rider to strike his opponent straight on, at a level similar to that at

which the weapon was held. This way of holding the lance is confirmed by Parthian iconog-

raphy, namely the reliefs from Tang-i Sarvak, Firuzabad and elsewhere, dating to the first

half of the 3rd century A.D. 20

The use of the long spear held along the horse's flank is documented in representations of

Greek horsemen in the times of Alexander the Great. In the battle scene represented on the

"Alexander's Sarcophagus" the king is shown holding a spear along the horse's flank. 21

A spear held in the same manner is shown on a coin struck in Babylon representing a symbolic

battle scene between Alexander and Porus. :: The horseman shown on coins of Demetrius

Poliorcetes, and the Dioscuri shown on coins of Eucratides I (ca 170-1 35) 23 hold the weapon

in a similar way.

It is worthwhile to recall that heavy armoured cavalry drawn up in a wedge-like forma-

tion were ineffective against the phalanx, as exemplified by the Achaemenid horsemen (e.g.

An.,Anab. 1.15).

Attention should be paid to the fact that the sources all mention cataphract battles with

infantry, both those dealing with the activities of Parthian cataphracts at Tigranocerta and

Carrhae, and those mentioning the manner of fighting of Seleucid cataphracts. Characteristic

15 Grenet 1980: 60-63.

16 Rostovtzeff 1935: 234 and fig. 46; Sekunda 1994: pis. 32-34, and p. 76.

17 Rostovtzeff 1935: 234.

18 Jaeckel 1965: 94-122; Lumpkin 1975: 193-208.

19 Xenophon, De re equestri. See Anderson 1970.

20 Mielczarek 1993:41 ff

21 See von Graeve 1970. Also Markle 1977: 333 ff.

22 Price 1982: 75 85.

23 Bopearachchi 1991:2,4-8, 11-12, 19-21.


in this respect is the battle at Magnesia where the Syrian troops formed a relatively deep and

narrow centre with the cataphracts on the wings. Both Livy and Appian (Syr. 37) regard this

array as an error on the part of Antiochus III, due, in their views, to his confidence in the role

of cavalry in military affairs. As a matter of fact, thanks to this battle order the cataphracts on

the right wing of Antiochus Ill's army were facing one of the Roman legions. 24

This seems to prove that Antiochus III corectly regarded cataphracts as a force able to

attack even the best infantry. 25 This was the result of Antiochus* eastern campaign. Accord-

ing to Justin (41.5), during this war the Parthian army opposing Antiochus III included 100,000

infantrymen and 20,000 horsemen.

Before arms and armour became the main subject of discussion regarding cataphracts,

William Tarn suggested that the appearance of the cataphract was the response of the East,

where cavalry were dominant arm, to the Macedonian phalanx. 26

The strengh of this formation was not its equipment, which was a result of the manner of

fighting, but its tactics. These demanded excellently trained warriors and horses who would

be able to maintain their order during the course of an encounter and to wield a long spear. 27

This is evident both at Tigranocerta and at Carrhae. 28 The ability of the Seleucid catapracts to

maintain their order at Magnesia is corroborated by Livy (37.40). Unware of the manner in

which the cataphracts fought, he regarded their weapons as weakness in cavalry. In this opin-

ion their equipment was too heavy to enable them to withdraw easily from the battlefield.

Of the two above mentioned characteritics which distinguished the cataphracts from oth-

er cavalry units, including other types of heavy armoured horsemen, neither the heavy ar-

mour nor the use of the long spear were specific to Parthian cataphracts, and both were cer-

tainly not unfamiliar to Seleucid horsemen.

In summary the introduction of cataphracts into the Seleucid army, in all probability

effected during Antiochus Ill's reign, was in practice limited to a change in the manner of

fighting of Seleucid heavy armoured cavalry. Both soldiers and horses were trained to fight in

close order in a way that would make them able to maintain their order as long as possible.

The Parthian element in this was the method of fighting in a close column. However, the new

method devised by the Parthians was not easy to employ. In order to make it work it was

necessary to change the training of both Greek riders and horses, and this probably meant that

the horse harness had to be changed as well.


Adcock, F.E. (1966): Marcus Crassus, Millionaire. Cambridge.

Anderson, J.K. (1970): Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon. Berkeley - Los Angeles.

24 Bar-Kochva 1976: 71.

25 Cf. Plut., Lucull 28.2.

26 Tarn 1930: 73; Mielczarek 1993: 47-48. Cf. Laufer 1914: 221; Tolstov 1948: 241 ff.; Rubin 1955: 264 ff.;

Eadie 1967: 162 ff.; Pugachenkova 1966: 43; Khazanov 1968: 186.

27 Cf. Bar-Kochva 1976: 75 and 253 n. 10.

28 Mielczarek 1993: 41 ff. The older literature on the battle at Carrhae here.

Cataphracts - a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war 1 05

Bar-Kochva, B. (1976): The Seleucid Army. Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cam-


Bopearchchi, O. (1991): Monnaies grico-bactriennes et indo-grecques. Catalogue raisonne. Paris.

Bunge, J.G. (1976): Die Feiern Antiochos' IV. Epiphanes in Daphne im Herbst 166 v.Chr. Zu einem

umstrittenen Kapitel syrischer undjudaischer Geschichte. Chiron 6: 53--71.

Eadie, J.E. (1967): The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry. JRS 57: 161-73.

von Graeve, V. (1970): Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt. Berlin.

Grenet, F., Liger, J.-C, de Valence, R. (1980): VII. L'Arsenal [in:] P. Bernard, Campagne de fouille

1978 a Ai Khanoum (Afghanistan). Bulletin de VEcole Frangaise d'Extreme Orient 68: 51-63.

Jaeckel, P. (1965): Pergamenische Waffenreliefs. Zeitschrift fur Waffen und Kostiimkunde 2: 94-122.

Kawami, T.S. (1987): Monumental Art of the Parthian Period in Iran. (Acta Iranica 13). Leiden.

Khazanov, A.M. (1968): Kataphraktarii i ich rol' v istorii voennogo iskusstva. VDI 1968 (1): 180-91.

Laufer, B. (1914): Chinese Clay Figures. Part I: Prologomena on the History of Defensive Armour.

Chicago, Illinois.

Lumpkin H. (1975): The Weapons and Armour of the Macedonian Phalanx. Journal of the Arms and

Armour Society 8,3: 193-208.

Markle, M.M. (1977): The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear and Related Armor. AJA 81: 323-39.

Michalak, M. (1987): The Origins and Development of Sassanian Heavy Cavalry. Folia Orientalia 24:


Mielczarek, M. (1992): Demonstracja wojskowa w Dafne w 166 roku p.n.e. a wyprawa Antiocha IV

Epifanesa na Wschod. Acta Universitatis Lodzensis. Folia Historica 44: 3-12.

Mielczarek, M. (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii. Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the

Ancient World. Lodz.

Morkholm, O. (1966): Antiochus IV of Syria. Kobenhavn.

Peter, H. (1865): Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Romer. Halle.

Price, M. (1982): The "Porus" Coinage of Alexander the Great: A Symbol of Concord and Community

[in:] Studia Paulo Naster oblata. Vol. I: Numismatica Antiqua. Leuven: 75-85.

Pugachenkova, G.A. (1966): O pantsirnom vooruzhenii parfjanskogo i baktriiskogo voinstva. VDI 1966

(2): 27-43.

Rostovtzeff, M.I. ( 1 935): Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art. YCIS 5: 1 55-304.

Rubin, B. (1955): Die Entstehung der Kataphraktenreiterei im Lichte der choresmischen Ausgrabun-

gen. HistoriaA: 264-83.

Schmitt, H.H. (1964): Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos' des Grossen und seiner Zeit. (Histo-

ria Einzelschriften 6). Wiesbaden.

Schippmann, K. (1980): Grundziige der par this chen Geschichte. Darmstadt.

Sekunda, N. (1 994): Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 B. C, vol. 1 : The Seleucid Army.


Tarn, W.W. (1930): Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments. Cambridge.

Tarn, W.W. (1966): The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge [reprint of 1951 edition].

Tolstov, S.P. (1948): Drevnii Khoresm. Moskva.

Walbank, F.W. (1979): A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 3: Commentary on Books XIX-XL.


Wolski, J. (1979): Points de vue sur les sources greco-romaines de l'epoque parthe [in:] Prologomena to

the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia. Budapest: 17-25.

Wolski, J. (1983): Les sources de l'epoque hellenistique et parthe de l'histoire d'Iran. Difficultes de leur

interpretation et problemes de leur evaluation. AAHung 28: 137-45.

Edited by The Crooked Philosopher
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, nice source, but with Syrian. Archer we have almost the empty information, when happens we can contrasted many secondary sources

Examinate roman Syrian , Assiryan archers, rome total war mod archers, other regional archers that are geographical close in the context era.

And see what elements are commons in all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For now the main problem is buildings, I want to differenciate this faction from other Hellenistic , Ptolemy have own style but Seleucid don't.

Aren't not reconstructions of Antioch, Seleucia and other Tetrapolis.

Pergamum is too Hellenistic, Jerusalem? I don't but is best card to imagine Seleucid mixed culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the unit roster, but i found something wrong:

Generic Name: Macedonian Pikeman.
Specific Name: Phalangitès Makedonikos.
Class: Spearman.
Hacker Armament: Long Macedonian pike, the "sarissa".
Basic: "Chalkaspides" Bronze Shield pikeman.
Advanced: "Chrysaspides" Gold Shield pikeman.
Elite: "Argyraspides" Silver Shield pikeman.
History: .
Garrison: 1.
Function: Slow. Cavalry killer. Individually very vulnerable to ranged units and swordsmen when not in Syntagma formation.
Special: "Syntagma" Formation.

The elite should be the "Chrysaspides" not the "Argyraspides".

In case of forbidden classes, the Seleucid was able to recruit infantry slinger because they have Fratarakā in Persia to recruit Cyrtians as slingers during the reign of Antiochus III.

Here's an article of Encyclopedia Iranica: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cyrtians-gk

Hopefully the team may reconsider about the forbidden class.

Edited by Mega Mania
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the unit roster, but i found something wrong:

Generic Name: Macedonian Pikeman.

Specific Name: Phalangitès Makedonikos.

Class: Spearman.

Hacker Armament: Long Macedonian pike, the "sarissa".


Basic: "Chalkaspides" Bronze Shield pikeman.

Advanced: "Chrysaspides" Gold Shield pikeman.

Elite: "Argyraspides" Silver Shield pikeman.

History: .

Garrison: 1.

Function: Slow. Cavalry killer. Individually very vulnerable to ranged units and swordsmen when not in Syntagma formation.

Special: "Syntagma" Formation.

The elite should be the "Chrysaspides" not the "Argyraspides".

In Macedonian and Seleucid armies, "silver" was a greater honor than "gold."



Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...