Pontic Army c.50BC

[wipgamesandminiatures]

Hi everyone,

I've been looking, and struggling, to find good enough sources to form an army list for the composition of the Pontic army up until the Battle of Zela 47BC.

I have some units already included in the army, and will lay them out below, as well as some units I am not sure of composition wise, and will note them.

I would be very happy for any of you to point me in the right direction for these units, as well as any that I have missed and even those that I have included that shouldn't be there.

Infantry:

Phalangites - simply pikes, shields and 'padded' armour option
Thureophoroi
Peltasts
Skirmishers - bows, slings and javelins

Cavalry:

Pontic Nobles/Heavy Cav - xyston? not sure on armour type, did they have barding, and what type? did they use wedge?
Pontic Cav - same equipment and questions as the nobles or completely different?
Light/Skirmish cav - javelins/bows?

Chariots:

Scythed Chariot - is this armoured head to toe or am I wrong on this?

Mercenaries/Allies:

I have seen some things about Scythian horse archers nut I would like to be certain.
Generic infantry/cavalry mercenaries, representing Galatians/Cappadocians etc.


As you can see, most of my questions are regarding the cavalry army of the army. I know that this is a hard army for everyone to completely agree on composition wise, especially for the period I am asking for, but any help on the matter will be greatly appreciated!

[Pattus Magnus]

I’m not an expert, but did some research for gaming purposes about 15 year’s ago when I put together a small Pontic army. Take my input with a grain of salt!

I think Zela was at the tail end of Pontic influence and the army was a bit ad hoc (even by usual Pontic standards). There probably weren’t pike formations, as those were mostly the core in the early armies. The pikes were defeated heavily at Chaeronea and Mithridates seems to have shifted toward using imitation legions instead. Same with scythed chariots- they featured early on, didn’t perform well against Romans and seem to have been abandoned. By Zela, the imitation legions did okay, but also took heavy losses - the Pontic armies may not have been able to rebuild them after shifting the capital to the north side of the Black Sea. By Zela, infantry would have been a hodge podge of mercenaries equipped along the lines of thureophoroi and Galatian mercenaries.

For horse, similar things. Initially a mix of Hellenic types with long spears alongside Anatolian types. During Mithridates alliance with Tigranes of Armenia, Hellenic cavalry are replaced by Armenian types, including cataphracts. After the move to the north shore, cavalry would mostly be local tribal mercenaries- a mix of Sarmatian and Scythian armoured nobles with a lot of mounted archers.

That’s my take, anyway.

I don’t want to be a buzz-kill and discourage you from the project but I think at Zela Caesar wasn’t facing the kind of force that Mithridates could put together at the height of Pontic power.

If you want a Pontic battle where Mithridates’ army has all the fancy units, go with Chaeronea! The only thing that one is missing is Julius Caesar.

[Basementboy]

Scythed Chariot - is this armoured head to toe or am I wrong on this?

Depends what you mean by head to toe- the horses would have been wearing boarding by this stage and the charioteers would likely have some armour too, but probably not to the level of the cataphracts.

[trev]

You've got to love Mithridates, he's like a ancient Bond villain.  Cool back story, immune to poison, kills people in brutal and imaginative ways, keeps getting beaten but coming back for the sequel, has loads of secret lairs full of gold and beautiful women, dies in an ironic way.  The ultimate bad-guy.   

The bad news is I don't know of a nice wargamer's guide I can point you to.  There isn't even an Osprey, I don't think.  We do have some details though, and we can extrapolate or infer others.  We discussed some of this before, and there are some links to sources included there.

https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=139685.msg1779481#msg1779481

Here's my view:

The kingdom of Pontus was composed of Hellenized cities on the north Anatolian coast and an Iranianised hinterland in the Cappadocian Highlands.  So, the core Pontic army was drawn from Greek and Persian traditions.  Further, it was backed by substantial wealth, with good horse country and lots of manpower to draw on.   Mithridates added Scythian and Sarmatian traditions to the mix via his imperial possessions and allies.  This gave a very exotic and diverse army that looked more impressive than it was.  After initial defeat Mithridates improved discipline, romanised his infantry to a much greater extent, and brought in Armenian heavy cavalry to create a superior quality army.  Pharnaces probably inherited this later military tradition but with a significantly smaller power base.  Pontic armies had some success against second rate Roman armies or generals but were ultimately outclassed and defeated, as were all the successor states in the end. 

The early army was quite spectacular, a mix of colourful coats and fancy armour.  Roman writers were not complimentary about this and said it just provided the legionaries with plunder.  Most units probably drew on their own traditions and would be typical examples of their type.  Some ex-slaves were added to early units to stiffen their morale, but we don't know if they were equipped from reserves or fought in their old slave clothes.  Later armies were supposedly less spectacular and more functional but that is probably overstated as most troops probably still fought in their own national costume.  Maybe the imitation legions were more business-like. 

Pontic Infantry:
Macedonian style Pike Phalanxes are definitely attested in the 1st Mithridatic war, along with other heavy troops types, including some romanised units.  Most of the Hellenised world abandoned Macedonian tactics around this time and Mithridates seems to do so after his initial defeats.  Imitation legionaries would be the core heavy infantry in later armies.  How Romanised they were in is debatable, so they may have been difficult to distinguish from the city/mercenary Thureophoroi.  If there was any difference at all. Phalanxes are mentioned later but were probably just unreconstructed Thureophoroi or other spearmen by this time.  The term might even only mean infantry lines, so they could have been imitation legionaries.  Hellenised cities would provide Thureophoroi, as well as Peltasts, and various types of skirmishers.  Highland Iranianised tribesmen could be javelinmen, massed archers or maybe some swordsmen. 

Pontic Cavalry:
The Pontic noble cavalry was primarily drawn from the uplands, were Mithridates had lived as a youth, so would be heavily Iranian in tradition but with some Greek cavalry also possible from cities or the coastal littoral.  I don't see large numbers of Xyston armed men in wedges by this time though.  Most other successors had abandoned the old Macedonian style cavalry, even in Macedonia itself.  Pontic light cavalry would be traditional Anatolian or Persian style light horse, armed with Javelins, but might include some 'tarentines' or similar Greeks in their numbers as well. 

Chariots:
Scythed Chariot were probably drawing on Persian, or more recent Seleucid, practice.  Horse armour seems likely given the proximity of numerous Cataphract using traditions. 

Mercenaries/Allies:
Armenia Minor could provide Armenian style Cataphracts and horse archers.  Colchis/Bosphorus probably supplied Sarmatian style unshielded heavy cavalry with long spears, and Scythian light horse archers.  Large numbers of mercenary infantry are mentioned and were probably typically Thureophoroi, and possibly some Galatians.  In major battles the Thureophoroi probably fought as massed spearmen but might use skirmish tactics if needed.  Many of these may later have been romanised.  Mithridates had allies in Crete and Cilicia, so Cretan archers and pirate light marines are possible as well.  There may also have been some 'Thracians' probably from Bithynia. 

[bluewillow]

I built my army to cover from Sulla campaign down to the defeat in Crimea.

Phalingites, long trousers
Imitation legionaries
Thureophoroi light infantry
Mountain tribesmen
Galatians
Peltast slingers
Peltast javelin

Heavy cavalry barding
Medium cavalry tribal nobles
Light cavalry javelin
Light cavalry bow

Heavy chariots

It was a fun army to build but performed fair in tournaments. I could transform it also to any other successor with a few tweaks. By adding elephants or other cavalry.



Cheers
Matt

[carlos marighela]

Armenians? Any opportunity to get a Kardashian or two on the table. Chuck Aznavour too.

[trev]

Nice army BlueWillow.  Had to check your blog though.  I can't see much from that picture. 

Trousers on Phalangites is an interesting question. I don't think there is much evidence for or against.  Later Successor practice has troops, who were not ethnic Macedonians, adopted into the 'Macedonian' class of soldiers, who presumably fought as Phalangites.  If you were adopting a new, superior, social class, I imagine you would dress the part to avoid any risk of losing that new status.  However, we don't really know what the others were wearing by that stage either.  Other than some shield colours.  The historian in me imagines a conservative military elite in traditional style gear, but the wargamer/modeller in me wants them in colourful trousers.      I think either, or both, would be acceptable.

That reminds me, Mithridates has a named regiment in the sources, the Brazen or Bronze shields (Chalkaspides).  I would guess these would be a successor style guard regiment similar to the Hypaspists or Argyraspides of Macedonian tradition. They are not mentioned after the 'romanisation' of the army.  I don't remember any source explicitly stating how they were armed though, so they could have been Thureophoroi, imitation legionaries or even Hoplites.  They attack into some hills at one point, so that might indicate lighter equipment, or maybe a possible dual equipment option, like Alexander's Phalangites may have used.  Then again, Alexander and the successors use their Phalangites in hill country, so maybe it means nothing.

Armenians? Any opportunity to get a Kardashian or two on the table. Chuck Aznavour too.

If you can model it Carlos, I would love to see it. 

[OB]

The ex slaves are interesting. 

Almost all of them had been free men who found themselves sold into slavery as part of the Roman rape of Asia.  Early "Financialization" if you like.  They were victims of political deals they barely knew about.

Mithridates freed them as part of his extreme democrat phase. He organised the massacre of every Latin speaker in the region and cancelled debts to the deceased.  Cancelling debts was a very Eastern King thing to do and murdering oppressors was in the democratic tradition.  Combining the two strikes me as innovative.

In battle the phalanx of ex slaves did rather better than the phalanx of the professionals.  No doubt they were better motivated.  Before their enslavement they would have had whatever military training usual for free men of their locality and class.

Mithridates was very wealthy and trained and equipped his troops to the best of his ability.  This would have extended to the ex slaves.  I don't see them as some sort of second rate troops.

[trev]

The ex slaves are interesting. 

Almost all of them had been free men who found themselves sold into slavery as part of the Roman rape of Asia.  Early "Financialization" if you like.  They were victims of political deals they barely knew about.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

In battle the phalanx of ex slaves did rather better than the phalanx of the professionals.  No doubt they were better motivated.  Before their enslavement they would have had whatever military training usual for free men of their locality and class.

Mithridates was very wealthy and trained and equipped his troops to the best of his ability.  This would have extended to the ex slaves.  I don't see them as some sort of second rate troops.

The way I read it, the slaves were distributed amongst the other units.  Not forming their own units. 

By this time the mass of both armies met; the barbarians on one side fixed their long pikes, and with their shields locked close together, strove so far as in them lay to preserve their line of battle entire. The Romans, on the other side, having discharged their javelins, rushed on with their drawn swords, and struggled to put by the pikes to get at them the sooner, in the fury that possessed them at seeing in the front of the enemy fifteen thousand slaves, whom the royal commanders had set free by proclamation, and ranged amongst the men of arms. And a Roman centurion is reported to have said at this sight, that he never knew servants allowed to play the masters, unless at the Saturnalia. These men, by their deep and solid array, as well as by their daring courage, yielded but slowly to the legions, till at last by slinging engines, and darts, which the Romans poured in upon them behind, they were forced to give way and scatter.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/sylla.html

It could be units "ranged amongst" the others but this one from Frontinus sounds more explicitly like intermixing within a unit.
 

[17] In the battle against Lucius Sulla, Archelaus [the Pontic General] placed his scythe-bearing chariots in front, for the purpose of throwing the enemy into confusion; in the second line he posted the Macedonian phalanx, and in the third line auxiliaries armed after the Roman way, with a sprinkling of Italian runaway slaves, in whose doggedness he had the greatest confidence. In the last line he stationed the light-armed troops, while on the two flanks, for the purpose of enveloping the enemy, he placed the cavalry, of whom he had a great number.

https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/classical-references/sextus-julius-frontinus-stratagems/

Depending on the scale we represent, that might be a moot point on the tabletop anyway.  They were certainly intended to stiffen and improve morale, so definitely not "second rate troops" in morale terms, at least.  The last bit from Plutarch's Sulla, above, shows it was a tough fight and they didn't break easily.

[bluewillow]

Hi Trev, I sold the army before I moved to France so no new photos, I think the photo is from the rescue from my photo bucket as I lost a lot of photos when it moved to payment only.

Cheers
Matt

[OB]

I'm more minded to the "ranged amongst" point of view.

The Frontinus quote is worth exploring more.  They are ex slaves and armed in the Roman way and they constitute a sprinkling.  The Pontic General is still Archelaus (not yet defected) and he has great confidence in them.  Are they the survivors of the ex slave phalangites now re equipped?

 

[trev]

Hi Trev, I sold the army before I moved to France so no new photos, I think the photo is from the rescue from my photo bucket as I lost a lot of photos when it moved to payment only.

Fair enough.  I sympathise, it's annoying when you lose stuff like that.

I'm more minded to the "ranged amongst" point of view.

The Frontinus quote is worth exploring more.  They are ex slaves and armed in the Roman way and they constitute a sprinkling.  The Pontic General is still Archelaus (not yet defected) and he has great confidence in them.  Are they the survivors of the ex slave phalangites now re equipped?

That seems like something Frontinus would have mentioned to me, especially given his theme of unusual military practices.  It's debatable there were even really two battles anyway.  Frontinus says 'the battle' in the translation not 'the second battle' but there's no way for us to be sure, so you could be right.   

[wipgamesandminiatures]

Thanks everyone for the replies!

It seems like this is always a topic of discussion that many of us that are interested in the period can not agree on 100%, and I always enjoy seeing the different points of view we all have on the matter.

It seems I have started off in the right direction. The Mithridatic Wars were the main point in which many of us believe the phalangites may have become 'extinct'. I always ere on the side of caution in saying things definitely weren't being done in periods of history that happened 2 millennia ago where we have barely enough evidence as it is. Whatever the actual facts are, we all seem to agree that there was definitely a mix of troop types in the Pontic army of this time period.

You've got to love Mithridates, he's like a ancient Bond villain.  Cool back story, immune to poison, kills people in brutal and imaginative ways, keeps getting beaten but coming back for the sequel, has loads of secret lairs full of gold and beautiful women, dies in an ironic way.  The ultimate bad-guy.   

The bad news is I don't know of a nice wargamer's guide I can point you to.  There isn't even an Osprey, I don't think.  We do have some details though, and we can extrapolate or infer others.  We discussed some of this before, and there are some links to sources included there.

https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=139685.msg1779481#msg1779481

Here's my view:

The kingdom of Pontus was composed of Hellenized cities on the north Anatolian coast and an Iranianised hinterland in the Cappadocian Highlands.  So, the core Pontic army was drawn from Greek and Persian traditions.  Further, it was backed by substantial wealth, with good horse country and lots of manpower to draw on.   Mithridates added Scythian and Sarmatian traditions to the mix via his imperial possessions and allies.  This gave a very exotic and diverse army that looked more impressive than it was.  After initial defeat Mithridates improved discipline, romanised his infantry to a much greater extent, and brought in Armenian heavy cavalry to create a superior quality army.  Pharnaces probably inherited this later military tradition but with a significantly smaller power base.  Pontic armies had some success against second rate Roman armies or generals but were ultimately outclassed and defeated, as were all the successor states in the end. 

The early army was quite spectacular, a mix of colourful coats and fancy armour.  Roman writers were not complimentary about this and said it just provided the legionaries with plunder.  Most units probably drew on their own traditions and would be typical examples of their type.  Some ex-slaves were added to early units to stiffen their morale, but we don't know if they were equipped from reserves or fought in their old slave clothes.  Later armies were supposedly less spectacular and more functional but that is probably overstated as most troops probably still fought in their own national costume.  Maybe the imitation legions were more business-like. 

Pontic Infantry:
Macedonian style Pike Phalanxes are definitely attested in the 1st Mithridatic war, along with other heavy troops types, including some romanised units.  Most of the Hellenised world abandoned Macedonian tactics around this time and Mithridates seems to do so after his initial defeats.  Imitation legionaries would be the core heavy infantry in later armies.  How Romanised they were in is debatable, so they may have been difficult to distinguish from the city/mercenary Thureophoroi.  If there was any difference at all. Phalanxes are mentioned later but were probably just unreconstructed Thureophoroi or other spearmen by this time.  The term might even only mean infantry lines, so they could have been imitation legionaries.  Hellenised cities would provide Thureophoroi, as well as Peltasts, and various types of skirmishers.  Highland Iranianised tribesmen could be javelinmen, massed archers or maybe some swordsmen. 

Pontic Cavalry:
The Pontic noble cavalry was primarily drawn from the uplands, were Mithridates had lived as a youth, so would be heavily Iranian in tradition but with some Greek cavalry also possible from cities or the coastal littoral.  I don't see large numbers of Xyston armed men in wedges by this time though.  Most other successors had abandoned the old Macedonian style cavalry, even in Macedonia itself.  Pontic light cavalry would be traditional Anatolian or Persian style light horse, armed with Javelins, but might include some 'tarentines' or similar Greeks in their numbers as well. 

Chariots:
Scythed Chariot were probably drawing on Persian, or more recent Seleucid, practice.  Horse armour seems likely given the proximity of numerous Cataphract using traditions. 

Mercenaries/Allies:
Armenia Minor could provide Armenian style Cataphracts and horse archers.  Colchis/Bosphorus probably supplied Sarmatian style unshielded heavy cavalry with long spears, and Scythian light horse archers.  Large numbers of mercenary infantry are mentioned and were probably typically Thureophoroi, and possibly some Galatians.  In major battles the Thureophoroi probably fought as massed spearmen but might use skirmish tactics if needed.  Many of these may later have been romanised.  Mithridates had allies in Crete and Cilicia, so Cretan archers and pirate light marines are possible as well.  There may also have been some 'Thracians' probably from Bithynia. 

This is some great information trev, and I'd like to expand on the equipment and tactics of the cavalry in the Pontic army now:

Many rule sets include:

Pontic Cataphracts - kontos, barding
Sarmatians - kontos, barding
Scythians - bows
Various Javelin type light cavalry - Armenians, Cappadocians, Galatians etc.

My question is, what would you say these would look like, exactly be armed with and act like in battle?

I see some believe that the wedge formation may not have been used at this point in time but is this actually the case? These are later Successor Kingdoms at the end of the day and although they seemed to be getting rid of more 'antiquated' (excuse the pun) tactics, heavy cavalry armed with kontos and barding etc. were still a strong arm of any army.

I have looked at the WAB v2 AoA Pontic Army list and the cavalry options are as follows:

Pontic cav - hand weapon, light armour, throwing spear, shield
Sarmatian noble cav - kontos, heavy armour. option for - barding, bow, cannot be taken unless there are horse archers
Horse archers - bow. option for - shield, throwing weapon - are nomad cavalry and can skirmish
Light cav - hand weapon, jav, shield - are skirmish and have feigned flight

Would you say these are fair interpretations of units you would expect to see in an army list for Pontics of this time frame?

One thing I would like to note is that this supplement also allows for Ptolemaic cavalry to use wedge but are not as heavily armoured and have no option for barding. Is this something widely accepted as being more or less the case for their cavalry?

Thanks again!

Dan

[Basementboy]

Thanks everyone for the replies!

It seems like this is always a topic of discussion that many of us that are interested in the period can not agree on 100%, and I always enjoy seeing the different points of view we all have on the matter.

It seems I have started off in the right direction. The Mithridatic Wars were the main point in which many of us believe the phalangites may have become 'extinct'. I always ere on the side of caution in saying things definitely weren't being done in periods of history that happened 2 millennia ago where we have barely enough evidence as it is. Whatever the actual facts are, we all seem to agree that there was definitely a mix of troop types in the Pontic army of this time period.

This is some great information trev, and I'd like to expand on the equipment and tactics of the cavalry in the Pontic army now:

Many rule sets include:

Pontic Cataphracts - kontos, barding
Sarmatians - kontos, barding
Scythians - bows
Various Javelin type light cavalry - Armenians, Cappadocians, Galatians etc.

My question is, what would you say these would look like, exactly be armed with and act like in battle?

I see some believe that the wedge formation may not have been used at this point in time but is this actually the case? These are later Successor Kingdoms at the end of the day and although they seemed to be getting rid of more 'antiquated' (excuse the pun) tactics, heavy cavalry armed with kontos and barding etc. were still a strong arm of any army.

I have looked at the WAB v2 AoA Pontic Army list and the cavalry options are as follows:

Pontic cav - hand weapon, light armour, throwing spear, shield
Sarmatian noble cav - kontos, heavy armour. option for - barding, bow, cannot be taken unless there are horse archers
Horse archers - bow. option for - shield, throwing weapon - are nomad cavalry and can skirmish
Light cav - hand weapon, jav, shield - are skirmish and have feigned flight

Would you say these are fair interpretations of units you would expect to see in an army list for Pontics of this time frame?

One thing I would like to note is that this supplement also allows for Ptolemaic cavalry to use wedge but are not as heavily armoured and have no option for barding. Is this something widely accepted as being more or less the case for their cavalry?

Thanks again!

Dan

Alexander and the following successor kingdoms used wedge or rhomboid formations to allow for easier manoeuvres on the field so there’s no reason to think Pontus would not be doing the same. Pontus also would have had access to armoured cavalry from regions to the south, so I think those would definitely make sense in this context as well, the Seleucid Empire had deployed cataphracts in the Near East more than a century before so Pontus would likely have adopted them by this point.

[wipgamesandminiatures]

Alexander and the following successor kingdoms used wedge or rhomboid formations to allow for easier manoeuvres on the field so there’s no reason to think Pontus would not be doing the same. Pontus also would have had access to armoured cavalry from regions to the south, so I think those would definitely make sense in this context as well, the Seleucid Empire had deployed cataphracts in the Near East more than a century before so Pontus would likely have adopted them by this point.

I have no doubt that Pontus would have used the tactics other successor kingdoms and Alexander were using at the time, it's definitely something that may have been 'outdated' 250 years later by the time of Mithridates and Pharnacces II which is more what I'm looking at.

Just by the suggestion in WAB that the later Ptolemaics were still using wedge leads me to question why the Pontic cavalry can't/didn't do so when they had a much stronger and varied cavalry force.