Pontic armies?

[Tim Haslam]

Was there a date when Pontic armies dropped using the pike and phalanx, and adopted Roman style warriors, imitation legionaries,  or was it gradually adopted?
Could you have for example pike and imitation legionaries on the same battlefield?

Thanks

[bigredbat]

The phalanx was slaughtered at Chaeronea in 86 BCE, but I think some phalangites may also have been present at the following battle. After that, not so much.

Incidentally if you want to understand Chaeronea, find the N G L Hammond account from the '30s, it's out there as a PDF. I feel he had a much better understanding of the battle than anyone since.

[Tim Haslam]

Thanks Simon,
So your in the all or nothing camp, no mixing?

[bigredbat]

I don't think there would be much mixing; I think at the first battle they firmly believed in the pike, but quickly appreciated that their confidence was misplaced.

[Easy E]

I am not an expert, but I do believe there are accounts of Phalangites and Imitation Legionnaires being present at a military parade of some kind by Seleucus (?).  However, there is some dispute if these were try imitation legionaires, or simply a Roman interpretation of armored Theurophoroi(sp- I think they also had a different name that is escaping me in the moment.  Getting old sucks). 

The reason the Phalangists persisted was because it is hard to change a culture enough to embrace the doctrine of Legionary infantry.  After Phillip decisively beat the Greek city-states, that did not immediately put an end to the use of Hoplites.  Why?  Because the Hoplite technique was a naturally occurring by product of a certain culture that did not instantly evaporate with Phillip or even Alexander's victory.       

Someone wiser than me will need to come and talk about it.  However, I am of the belief that you can and should have mixed forces of the two unit types.   

[Tim Haslam]

Yup, I’m thinking you are correct on that point.

But in the case of the Pontic army, we were already living in a ‘new’ manipular legionary world.


I’ve got the opportunity to field a Pontic force in an event in June.
The army list has just one fault, it’s a little ambiguous on the above question.
Whilst it’s not a major problem, I just thought it would be nice to get a historical viewpoint!
Plus I do have enough figures for either configuration.

Thanks for the input so far.

[trev]

Hi Tim,

Mithridates converted his army to a more Romanised model after defeat by Sulla in the First Mithridatic War of 88-85 BC.   Plutarch describes the Pontic forces at the resumption of hostilities against Lucullus in the Second Mithridatic War of 83-81 BC so:

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

The enemy's provisions for war stood thus: Mithridates, like the Sophists, boastful and haughty at first, set upon the Romans, with a very inefficient army, such, indeed, as made a good show, but was nothing for use; but being shamefully routed, and taught a lesson for a second engagement, he reduced his forces to a proper, serviceable shape. Dispensing with the mixed multitudes, and the noisy menaces of barbarous tribes of various languages, and with the ornaments of gold and precious stones, a greater temptation to the victors than security to the bearers, he gave his men broad swords like the Romans', and massy shields; chose horses better for service than show, drew up an hundred and twenty thousand foot in the figure of the Roman phalanx, and had sixteen thousand horse, besides chariots armed with scythes, no less than a hundred. Besides which, he set out a fleet not at all cumbered with gilded cabins, luxurious baths, and women's furniture, but stored with weapons and darts, and other necessaries, and thus made a descent upon Bithynia.

Plutarch obviously approves of this change from the impressive looking but ultimately ill disciplined and ineffective Asiatic horde of the first war to a proper fighting army in the second. This is Plutarch's earlier description of the First Mithridatic War Pontic army in Greece.

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

As they [the Romans] lay thus encamped, they seemed to the enemy a contemptible number, for there were not above fifteen hundred horse, and less than fifteen thousand foot. Therefore the rest of the commanders, over-persuading Archelaus and drawing up the [Pontic] army, covered the plain with horses, chariots, bucklers, targets. The clamour and cries of so many nations forming for battle rent the air, nor was the pomp and ostentation of their costly array altogether idle and unserviceable for terror; for the brightness of their armour, embellished magnificently with gold and silver, and the rich colours of their Median and Scythian coats, intermixed with brass and shining steel, presented a flaming and terrible sight as they swayed about and moved in their ranks, so much so that the Romans shrunk within their trenches, and Sylla, unable by any arguments to remove their fear, and unwilling to force them to fight against their wills, was fain to sit down in quiet, ill-brooking to become the subject of barbarian insolence and laughter.

I'm not sure of the original for 'Bucklers' and 'Targets' so that might be evidence for Romanised troops as well as the Hellenistic units.

However, Frontinus does give us explicit evidence of Romanised Pontic troops in the first war

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

[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.

Auxiliaries here doesn't refer to the later Imperial Roman professional soldiers but probably means just allied or mercenary troops, as most Pontic forces would have been. 

So you can seemingly mix both troop types in the first war but should switch more wholesale to Romanised infantry from the second. There might have been some unreformed units, or mercenaries, still in the Hellenistic style found in later armies but the core should probably be 'imitation legionaries'.

[Jjonas]

Sometimes Phalanx just means battle line, and sometimes it means guys with pikes, or spears and big shields. This is a source of much of our confusion. Some folks insist the Pontics used a phalanx (pikes) in the last war where they routed Roman and Galatian legions, but were routed in turn by Caesar. Veni Vedi Vici.

I personally am in the guessing camp that after the first war Mitridates dumped the phalanx (of pikemen) for his new trained (by Romans)  cohorts. These cause so much trouble for Rome, I would doubt anybody would go back once they found out how to build cohorts. I find the idea of mixing the two types visually impressive but tactically cumbersome, especially since Pontic cohorts were rarely capable of standing up to decently led actual Romans.
The good news is this transition period is ripe for scenario builders to flex their "what-if" muscle skills. The battle where the Galatians were Allied with the Roman 36th legion in Anatolia is particularly ripe for scenarios- especially interesting since the Roman legion formed square and withdrew from the fight.
Once again a period where some decent source material from the losers might help us understand. The Pontic cavalry are also a mix and match nugget of hazy theories- from Alexandrian Companions with trousers to Persian like cataphracts - or something in between. The did find a broke trophy for Chaeronea that showed lots of thureos shields, and a Hellenistic style cuirass tropion. That's a small nugget.

https://www.academia.edu/4239949/A_Trophy_from_the_Battle_of_Chaironeia_of_86_B._C

[ithoriel]

I'm in the camp that says phalangites and thureophoroi OR imitation legionaries but as has been said, evidence is scarce and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" so if you have a preference I would be hard put to criticise your choice!

[Tim Haslam]

 

Thanks guys, wonderful information and yet a vague result!

[ithoriel]

Thanks guys, wonderful information and yet a vague result!

Pretty much the summary for all Ancient armies. Even the Romans, who left comparatively copious evidence of their military, manage to leave out information we would love to have because "everybody knows this!"

 

[Jjonas]

Here is Caesar's Alexandrian War. It describes the battle of Nicopolis 48bc where a Roman legion allied with a Pontic "legion"* and Galatian legion(s).
The make up of the Pontic King's deployment of infantry does not seem to be a phalanx, but others argue it could be. The center arranged in three lines seems to denote a Roman style cohort battleline- because phalanxes rarely are deployed behind each other- but that could be argued at Chaeronea as well.
What seems clear is the the Pontic King's troops failed to hold off the Romans, but defeated the Pontic allies and Galatian cohorts.

(*the legion which had been formed from the hastily improvised forces in Pontus.)

You will probably need to cut and paste this link.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Caesar/Alexandrian_War/B*.html

[trev]

Hi Jeff,

That's an interesting episode.  Domitius' Pontic Legion I would guess to be a force raised under Roman authority, and somewhat equating to a standard Roman legion, albeit a hastily equipped and trained one.  I would further guess it had Romans in, at least senior, command positions.  It's notable that Domitius puts this hasty and improvised force on the left, the more senior position, rather than use Deiotarus well established allied 'legions'.  Further, his deployment of the Galatians in depth confirms his lack of faith in them.  It seems even a second rate, raised in the provinces, and barely Roman legion, is still thought more reliable than these allied ones.  The battle account rather bears out Domitius' unfavourable judgement.

As for Pharnaces forces I don't think we can be totally sure either way how they fought but on balance I agree Romanised is more likely.  The supposition of a Romanised style infantry centre with auxiliary wings (possibly archers, or Thureophoroi, whatever they were by this time) does  seem reasonable, if unproven.  The multiple lines on the flanks could be all cavalry.  Then again, the description in Appian could equally match Archelaus' deployment from Frontinus above, with a solid Macedonian Phalanx, supported by Romanised and light troops plus cavalry on the flanks.  We're only missing the scythed chariots. 

For Chaeronea, I think the main battle line probably was a recognisably Hellenistic Phalanx.  Frontinus calls it 'Macedonian' explicitly and Plutarch has this description:.

"   [4] Thereupon the infantry forces engaged, the Barbarians holding their pikes before them at full length, and endeavouring, by locking their shields together, to keep their line of battle intact; while the Romans threw down their javelins, drew their swords, and sought to dash the pikes aside, that they might get at their enemies as soon as possible, in the fury that possessed them. "

Plus the Brazen/Bronze shields (Chalkaspides) sound very much like a Hellenistic Successor regiment to me.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0064%3Achapter%3D18

However, returning to Pharnaces' army, the line "according to his own established custom" does need to do a lot of heavy lifting if we are to assume a Hellenistic Phalanx forty years after Chaeronea.  I'm struggling to think of another recognisable Macedonian Phalanx still in use by this date.  Commagene or Armenia maybe, but if I remember correctly the evidence for those is weak too.  Also Appian has Mithridates and his Pontic officers training the Armenians in Roman practice twenty years earlier.  While the Seleucid Syrians, Judeans, Ptolemaic Egyptians and Numidians had all Romanised to some extent as well, which means practically the whole Mediterranean world was Romainised to varying degree.  So, while we probably can't ever be sure Pharnaces army was Romanised rather than a traditional Hellenistic one, it does seem more likely given his enemies, his contemporaries, and his immediate antecedents all seem to have been Roman or Romanised themselves.