Introducción del 2016
Este dibujo está basado en dos placas de terracota encontradas en Campania, que muestran tropas con una mezcla de ropa y equipo asiático y macedonio lo que sugiere que pertenecían a un ejército griego en el este, probablemente el seléucida. Probablemente los falangistas persas de Alejandro, los pantodapoi asiáticos de los Sucesores, las tropas más tardías de Mitrídates VI del Ponto, serían similares. Los pantalones son una señal segura de influencia “bárbara”, y la figura en la otra placa incluye mangas largas. La coraza se dobla con el movimiento del cuerpo, indicando que era de lino o de cuero antes que de metal. No parece haber garantía para la opinión de que la infantería de los reinos helenísticos se pasó a la armadura metálica, como algunas veces se ha sugerido. Asclepiodoto habla de coseletes, como hace Plutarco al describir a los aqueos de Filopemen, pero ninguno de ellos dice que fueran de metal, y sus palabras también serían adecuadas para la armadura de cuero. Al contrario, son comunes las ilustraciones de infantería con coseletes no metálicos, mientras que la mayoría de aquellas mostradas con corazas de chapa usan fajas de oficiales. Parece, entonces, la práctica general, que sólo los oficiales usaban las armaduras metálicas. Una confirmación para los Seléucidas la proporcionan unos relieves de guerreros con coseletes similares al de este dibujo, de cerca de Éfeso, posiblemente de la tumba de Antíoco III Teos, que murió allí el año 246. Los guerreros tenían mangas cortas y las piernas desnudas; la mayoría usaban casco ático con penacho en contraste con el casco tracio sin cimera que se muestra aquí. Quizás los relieves de Éfeso están basados en los argiráspides, la infantería de la guardia seléucida, de los que se podría esperar que presentasen un aspecto más helénico, con las piernas desnudas y grebas, y usasen penachos. Luchaban “armados al estilo macedonio” como falangistas. Excepto por una dudosa referencia a una marcha forzada en Bactria, no se encuentran en operaciones móviles a menudo como aquellas para las que habían sido usados los hipaspistas; por ejemplo no fueron usados cuando Antíoco III asaltó pasos de montaña. Así que no hay razones para creer que tuviesen un estilo alternativo de armamento más ligero como con Alejandro.
Este hombre sostiene su sarissa en ángulo, como hacían las filas posteriores de la falange, esperando disminuir la fuerza de los proyectiles enemigos. El pesado regatón colocado como contrapeso, la “parte de contrapeso” de Polibio, está sacado de los relieves de Pérgamo. La longitud de la sarissa aumentó después de Alejandro; Polibio dice que medía 14 cúbitos (6’4 metros) en el siglo II, pero que “originalmente” había sido de 16 cúbitos (7’3 metros) de longitud.
This figure is basically similar to 25 with a hoplite-type shield added, based on two reliefs from Thespiai in Boiotia. Greek cavalry adopted shields probably in the 3rd century, either after the appearance of Tarantine mercenaries in 317, or after Pyrrhos' Italian campaign of 281-75, when he met shielded Tarantine and Roman cavalry and may have brought shields back for his cavalry, and the contemporary incursion of shielded Galatian cavalry into Greece. The appearance of Thracian cavalry without shields in the early 3rd century Kazanluk paintings (figure 68) inclines me to favour the later date rather than postulating a rapid introduction after 317. Most Greek cavalry seem to have retained their traditional javelins rather than being re-armed, as the infantry were, after the Macedonian style. For possible exceptions see under figure 47. The much praised Aitolian cavalry are said by Livy to have used spears, not unfortunately further defined, and some at least wore cuirasses. In view of their general poverty and rapid mobile tactics these may perhaps have been non-metallic, but some may well have bought or looted metal armour.
Este dibujo es básicamente similar al número 25 con el añadido de un escudo de tipo hoplita, basado en dos relieves de Thespiai en Beocia. La caballería griega adoptó los escudos probablemente en el siglo III a. C., o tras la aparición de los mercenarios tarentino en el año 317, o tras la campaña italiana de Pirro en los años 281-275 a. C.
This figure is from the Aemilius Paullus monument, which clearly shows that Macedonian cavalry, like the last figure, had adopted large round shields. These have a central rib like the thureos indicating Celtic or Italian origin, but no metal boss or rim is indicated, and unlike the thureos this shield is carried with the rib horizontal. Unlike Macedonian infantry, no pattern is visible on the shield face. Although Peter Connolly says this shield “is certainly neither Roman nor Greek” it was in fact used by both, whatever its origin. It occurs on Roman coinage (see figure 140) and as for the Greeks it is carried by a cavalry officer in typical Hellenistic short plate cuirass and knotted sash on a relief from near Daskylion, on the borders of Bithynia and Phrygia. The cavalry on the Aemilius Paullus monument carrying these shields cannot be Celts, as Connolly suggests, as we know enough about the orders of battle to be fairly certain no Celtic cavalry were present, on either side. In addition, the clearest surviving cavalryman has a Macedonian style helmet, with low comb and cheekpieces, very like the silvered iron example from Epeiros, discussed under figure 34, depicted here. One rider shown without his shield has the usual cloak and short muscled cuirass.
Macedonian cavalry seem to have discarded the long xyston and reverted to javelins, since Livy describes their consternation when charged by Roman cavalry; the Macedonians automatically assumed cavalry would skirmish. He also mentions Philip V himself fighting with missiles from horseback, outside Athens. The change may have come about because using long xyston and large shield together was asking too much of cavalry without saddle or stirrups. The reduced shock power would have been acceptable because of the declining role of cavalry. Pyrrhos, who as noted may have been responsible for introducing cavalry shields to Greece, seems according to Dionysios of Halikarnassos to have had his guards armed with xyston in Italy, but after his return was using a bronze shield on horseback in his last battle at Argos (Pausanias records that the Argives kept it as a trophy), so may have adopted javelins and shield for himself and his guards.
Macedonian cavalry seem to have discarded the long xyston and reverted to javelins, since Livy describes their consternation when charged by Roman cavalry; the Macedonians automatically assumed cavalry would skirmish. He also mentions Philip V himself fighting with missiles from horseback, outside Athens. The change may have come about because using long xyston and large shield together was asking too much of cavalry without saddle or stirrups. The reduced shock power would have been acceptable because of the declining role of cavalry. Pyrrhos, who as noted may have been responsible for introducing cavalry shields to Greece, seems according to Dionysios of Halikarnassos to have had his guards armed with xyston in Italy, but after his return was using a bronze shield on horseback in his last battle at Argos (Pausanias records that the Argives kept it as a trophy), so may have adopted javelins and shield for himself and his guards.
http://www.warfare.altervista.org/WRG/AotMaPW-47-Xystophoros.htm
Some Hellenistic cavalry retained the xyston, but those who did so do not seem to have adopted shields, though certainty is difficult. This figure is based on a Roman coin celebrating the defeat of Macedon in 168. He may conceivably be a Macedonian, but as he is shown charging triumphantly rather than defeated and dispirited he is more likely a Roman ally, depicted to celebrate their assistance. Cavalry from several Greek states helped Rome during this war, but the most important contingent came from Rome's faithful ally Pergamon, and this figure is most likely a Pergamene. Equipment is basically that of figure 30, but the Boiotian helmet became less common in the 3rd century, and Macedonian types developed from the Thracian became standard. This man's crest and feathers may indicate that he comes from a bodyguard unit. Clothing colours would still usually be those noted under figure 30. Seleucid and Ptolemaic art occasionally shows long tunic sleeves.
Apart from Pergamenes, cavalry similarly armed seem to have included Ptolemaic, early Seleucid, later Achaian and possibly Athenian troops. Several contemporary illustrations show Ptolemaic cavalry with long xysta and no shields, the latest dating about 200 BC, some time after shields had been introduced elsewhere. Seleucid cavalry are called xystophoroi by Polybios and Plutarch, and a relief of a shieldless xystophoros, of uncertain date, comes from Ephesos. In general, illustrations of Hellenistic cavalry with the long spear are quite numerous, and so are illustrations of cavalry with shields; it is not likely to be coincidence that the two are never seen together.
In Greece proper, Plutarch describes Philopoimen using a xyston, so he may have re-armed the Achaian cavalry, as he did their infantry, though he may perhaps have been expressing personal preference alone. Polybios, once general of the Achaian League's cavalry, regards large round shields as standard Greek cavalry gear, but this need not mean that the Achaian xystophoroi used them. Finally, there is a relief of Hellenistic date from Athens showing a cavalryman in Boiotian helmet thrusting underarm with a spear, perhaps a xyston (though the old shorter cavalry spear of figure 27 is possible) so the Athenians too may have become xystophoroi.
Some Hellenistic cavalry retained the xyston, but those who did so do not seem to have adopted shields, though certainty is difficult. This figure is based on a Roman coin celebrating the defeat of Macedon in 168. He may conceivably be a Macedonian, but as he is shown charging triumphantly rather than defeated and dispirited he is more likely a Roman ally, depicted to celebrate their assistance. Cavalry from several Greek states helped Rome during this war, but the most important contingent came from Rome's faithful ally Pergamon, and this figure is most likely a Pergamene. Equipment is basically that of figure 30, but the Boiotian helmet became less common in the 3rd century, and Macedonian types developed from the Thracian became standard. This man's crest and feathers may indicate that he comes from a bodyguard unit. Clothing colours would still usually be those noted under figure 30. Seleucid and Ptolemaic art occasionally shows long tunic sleeves.
Apart from Pergamenes, cavalry similarly armed seem to have included Ptolemaic, early Seleucid, later Achaian and possibly Athenian troops. Several contemporary illustrations show Ptolemaic cavalry with long xysta and no shields, the latest dating about 200 BC, some time after shields had been introduced elsewhere. Seleucid cavalry are called xystophoroi by Polybios and Plutarch, and a relief of a shieldless xystophoros, of uncertain date, comes from Ephesos. In general, illustrations of Hellenistic cavalry with the long spear are quite numerous, and so are illustrations of cavalry with shields; it is not likely to be coincidence that the two are never seen together.
In Greece proper, Plutarch describes Philopoimen using a xyston, so he may have re-armed the Achaian cavalry, as he did their infantry, though he may perhaps have been expressing personal preference alone. Polybios, once general of the Achaian League's cavalry, regards large round shields as standard Greek cavalry gear, but this need not mean that the Achaian xystophoroi used them. Finally, there is a relief of Hellenistic date from Athens showing a cavalryman in Boiotian helmet thrusting underarm with a spear, perhaps a xyston (though the old shorter cavalry spear of figure 27 is possible) so the Athenians too may have become xystophoroi.
https://es.scribd.com/doc/29391428/Armies-of-the-Macedonian-and-Punic-Wars-359-BC-to-146-BC
ARMIES OF THE MACEDONIAN AND PUNIC WARS 359 BC to 146 BC
ARMIES OF THE MACEDONIAN AND PUNIC WARS 359 BC to 146 BC
INTRODUCCIÓN
ORGANIZACIÓN Y COMPOSICIÓN DE LOS EJÉRCITOS
LOS PERSAS
LOS GRIEGOS
Beocia
Esparta
Atenas
Fócide
La Liga Etolia
La Liga Aquea
Tarento
Siracusa
MACEDONIA: FILIPO Y ALEJANDRO
Antes de Filipo
Las reformas de Filipo II
Tesalia
Alejandro
Tropas orientales
LOS DIÁDOCOS
Poliperconte
Casandro
Alcestas
Peucestas
Eumenes
Antígono y Demetrio
Lisímaco
MACEDONIA ANTIGÓNIDA
EPIRO
EGIPTO PTOLEMAICO
Cirene
LOS SELÉUCIDAS
Las colonias militares estaban concentradas en Lidia, Frigia, Siria septentrional (alrededor de Antioquía, que llegó a ser la capital), el Éufrates superior (especialmente Dura-Europos) y Media. Los soldados tenían kleroi de tierra como en el ejército tolemaico, pero eran llamados katoikoi antes que klerouchoi. Como con los Tolomeos los colonos seléucidas eran en su mayoría una mezcla de griegos y macedonios, pero el elemento macedonio parece haber sido dominante, al menos en Lidia, Frigia y Siria. Había también katoikoi iranios en Media, tracios en Persis, judíos, misios y otros anatolios, mientras que los hircanios instalados por Persia en Lidia parecen haber sido asimilados a esta casta militar macedonia, ya que fueron llamados "los hircanios macedónicos" bajo el Imperio romano.
Mercenarios e irregulares
PÉRGAMO
LOS BACTRIANOS Y LOS GRECOINDIOS
LOS MACABEOS
LOS TRACIOS
Los ejércitos todavía serían esencialmente los mismos que aquellos descritos en las fuentes de los siglos V y IV a. C., formados por caballería, peltastas (o equivalente, aunque la pelte fue reemplazada por escudos más grandes), lanzadores de jabalina y arqueros, siendo predominantes los dos primeros tipos. Polyainos tiene una referencia a honderos tracios a inicios del siglo IV. Los primeros informes sugieren de un 25 a un 40% de caballería; en la etapa que estudiamos los getas desplegaban 4.000 jinetes y 10.000 infantes contra Alejandro, los odrisios 8.000 jinetes y 20.000 infantes contra Lisímaco, lo que se ajusta a estas proporciones. Los getas y los odrisios tenían la mejor caballería y la más numerosa, mientras qeu las salvajes tribus de las colinas como los Dioi y Bessoi confiaban en la fiereza de su infantería. De hecho Tucídides en el siglo V a. C. dice que todos los getas luchaban como arqueros a caballo al estilo escita, pero aunque deben haber producido fuerzas solo de caballería para incursiones o expediciones lejanas, claramente tenían mucha infantería para la defensa local. El rey odrisio Kotis en 171 tenía 1.000 jinetes de élite, probablemente una escolta real de nobles, con una fuerza igual de infantería ligera añadida a ellos.
IMPERIUM TOTAL WAR DESCARGAR
http://lukeuedasarson.com/Iphikrates1.html
http://www.tomeoftreasures.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1827
http://es.scribd.com/doc/64207327/Mongol-and-Tatar-Armor
http://es.scribd.com/doc/64204328/Battles-of-the-Ice-Kalka-and-Kulikovo-Military-Museum-Series
http://iron-mitten.blogspot.com.es/2010/04/auxiliary-troops.html
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario