Of course there were attempts to compensate for a limited number of 'ethnic', e.g. Greek / Macedonian, phalangites in the eastern Kingdoms, with the Seleucid Empire raising Iranian units of Phalangites and the Ptolemies raising Egyptian units, the latter generally considered 'poor quality'. This could be handled as a national decision option, similar to in EU IV ?
Horse archers, present in PI's Rome, were only really available to the Seleucids and in relatively small numbers. Specialist light cavalry armed with javelins were present in, or available to a wider range of states; numidian, Iberian, 'tarentine' (a description for Hellenistic light cavalry, whether from Greek southern Italy or further east).
Archers, present in PI's Rome, were available in limited numbers and primarily were 'psiloi' or light skirmish troops, numbered in most armies in hundreds rather than even 1,000. Most were described as 'Cretan', which again may be a generic term for Greek archers, or a style of bow or costume rather than strictly denoting Cretan ethnicity. Others were Iranian, or Numidian, though North African bow armed skirmishers only seem to appear after the Punic Wars. There were some, I think Carian (?) archers that probably operated in closer formation in slightly earlier Persian armies (during Alexander's conquest). Slingers appear in similarly small numbers in Greek and Iberian armies. Where Iranian skirmish archers are present they are usually in combination with a similar number of slingers, suggesting mixed units.
Because of the above I suggest that the 1,000 unit size used generically in Rome (and EU) is unhelpful. I accept this could be a reflection simply of relative strength rather than strict number. Perhaps a percentage rating rather than 1,000 as used for ships, e.g. unit now at 75% ? Or a scale of unit size reflecting role, e.g. units of 500 psiloi or cavalry, 1,000 infantry, 1,500 phalangites ?
The Romans seem to have been discerning about what troops they raised as auxilia / mercenaries from other peoples; irregular cavalry from allied Gallic tribes, slingers from the Balearic islands, Numidian or Cretan light archer skirmishers, Numidian light cavalry. Though during the second Punic war they welcomed Iberian and Numidian allies and presumably the forces those allies contributed were what those allies had available. In other words there is a distinction between raising a unit of auxilia / mercenaries (Cretan, Numidian, Thracian, Galatian) which might be of specialist type, and levying the support of an allied 'tribe' or minor state, which would contribute troops proportionate to its own typical army composition, e.g. Iberian tribes typically fielded a combination of 'peltast-like' long shield infantry (scutarii), 'psilioi-like' javelin armed skirmish infantry, possibly some slingers and some cavalry (in a larger force possibly split into light javelin armed skirmish cavalry and 'melee' cavalry).
Is this helpful ?
Horse archers, present in PI's Rome, were only really available to the Seleucids and in relatively small numbers. Specialist light cavalry armed with javelins were present in, or available to a wider range of states; numidian, Iberian, 'tarentine' (a description for Hellenistic light cavalry, whether from Greek southern Italy or further east).
Archers, present in PI's Rome, were available in limited numbers and primarily were 'psiloi' or light skirmish troops, numbered in most armies in hundreds rather than even 1,000. Most were described as 'Cretan', which again may be a generic term for Greek archers, or a style of bow or costume rather than strictly denoting Cretan ethnicity. Others were Iranian, or Numidian, though North African bow armed skirmishers only seem to appear after the Punic Wars. There were some, I think Carian (?) archers that probably operated in closer formation in slightly earlier Persian armies (during Alexander's conquest). Slingers appear in similarly small numbers in Greek and Iberian armies. Where Iranian skirmish archers are present they are usually in combination with a similar number of slingers, suggesting mixed units.
Because of the above I suggest that the 1,000 unit size used generically in Rome (and EU) is unhelpful. I accept this could be a reflection simply of relative strength rather than strict number. Perhaps a percentage rating rather than 1,000 as used for ships, e.g. unit now at 75% ? Or a scale of unit size reflecting role, e.g. units of 500 psiloi or cavalry, 1,000 infantry, 1,500 phalangites ?
The Romans seem to have been discerning about what troops they raised as auxilia / mercenaries from other peoples; irregular cavalry from allied Gallic tribes, slingers from the Balearic islands, Numidian or Cretan light archer skirmishers, Numidian light cavalry. Though during the second Punic war they welcomed Iberian and Numidian allies and presumably the forces those allies contributed were what those allies had available. In other words there is a distinction between raising a unit of auxilia / mercenaries (Cretan, Numidian, Thracian, Galatian) which might be of specialist type, and levying the support of an allied 'tribe' or minor state, which would contribute troops proportionate to its own typical army composition, e.g. Iberian tribes typically fielded a combination of 'peltast-like' long shield infantry (scutarii), 'psilioi-like' javelin armed skirmish infantry, possibly some slingers and some cavalry (in a larger force possibly split into light javelin armed skirmish cavalry and 'melee' cavalry).
Is this helpful ?
- 1
