Composición del ejército de Alejandro y de los refuerzos que recibió

Tamaño del ejército de Alejandro al invadir Asia el año 334: 9.000 pezhetairoi, 3.000 hipaspistas, 2.000 Hetairoi.
El año 333 Alejandro recibió como refuerzos en dos tandas: 3.300 macedonios, 5.800
El año 331 Alejandro recibió 6.500 refuerzos. Según Arriano Alejandro recibió en verano 6.000 macedonios de infantería, 500 jinetes macedonios y  9.000 otros.
En total entre los años 334 a. C. y 324. a. C. Alejandro recibió 30.000 macedonios de refuerzo. (Diez años de refuerzo son 20 turnos en el juego).

En el 326 Mennón llegó con 5.000 o 6.000 jinetes tracios y 7.000 de infantería.
Los primeros asiáticos al servicio de Alejandro fueron lanzadores de jabalina a caballo reclutados en Media. Más tarde reclutó jinetes bactrianos, sogdianos y escitas en Hircania, Bactria y Sogdiana.

Ver Desperta Ferro
Refuerzos en India: 30.000 infantes y 6.000 jinetes que según una versión eran griegos aliados y tropas mercenarias.
Llegada refuerzos a India mandados por Harpalus desde Asia Menor: 5.000 jientes tracios y 7.000 de infantería.
30.000 epigonoi
Alejandro contrató entre 60.000 y 100.000 mercenarios.

Curtius in his description of the forces that Alexander left Macedonia with says that there were Thracians, Peloponnese and Macedonians making up the force crossing into Asia Minor.¹ Diodorus also lists the different nationalities that made up Alexadner’s army, “Odyrsians, Triballians, and Illyrians…Thessalians…six hundred from the rest of Greece…and nine hundred Thracian and Paeonian…”² Clearly Alexander’s army was not just Macedonians, but a slice of Hellenic culture.

1 QCR V39

2 Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, XVII 17.3.

25.OOO EN EL HELESPONTO? CON O SIN PARMENIÓN?

 

Diodorus provides a similar number of men in Alexander’s army as well: “making up a total of thirty-two thousand foot soldiers. Of cavalry…making a total of forty five hundred cavalry. These were the men who crossed with Alexander to Asia.”¹ In Diodorus’ account however is useful information that although not 100% trustworthy is worth of note. Diodorus relates that Aristobulus gave figures of 30,000-foot soldiers and 4000 cavalry, and Ptolemy gave 30,000-foot soldiers and five thousand cavalry. Both of these figures are right in line with the numbers the complete sources give us, but one further one bears note:

1 DS xvii 17.3. Note that Diodorus places numbers and nationalities with the cavalry and they add up to a total of 5,100 not 4,500 as he states. Most likely the final total Diodorus gives is wrong and the numbers corresponding with the troops is correct. 

 

Arrian related that Alexander had “not much more than 30,000 infantry, including light troops and archers, and over 5,000 cavalry.”¹ It is important to note that Arrian does reference some of the other primary sources, making it clear that he was aware of some of the other authors higher figures and chooses to make Alexander’s army smaller. The figure from Arrian is also probably more realistic as it is unlikely that Alexander could have left Macedon with many more foot soldiers and still left behind the substantial force of 12,000-foot soldiers with Antipeter.

1 Arrian, I 11.

 

Nevertheless, the main force in Alexander’s army was always his prized Macedonian troops, of which they’re numbered about 15,000.¹

1 Bosworth, 266

 

Arrian, as stated earlier, is the most reliable source from this ancient period and as such bears more creditability than any other source alone. Arrian tells us that at the battle of Gaugamela “The total strength of Alexander’s army was 7,000 cavalry and 40,000 foot.”¹ Although I have partially rejected Arrian’s total in the past, the total arrived at was similar. With this in mind accepting this figure makes sense because both old totals are very similar. How then did Alexander’s army grow by almost 15,000 men and cavalry in the span between his departure from Macedon and the battle of Gaugamela?

1 Arrian, III 13

 

We are told by Diodorus Siculus that Alexander received “five hundred Macedonian Cavalry and six thousand infantry, six hundred Thracian cavalry and three thousand five hundred Trallians and from the Peloponnese four thousand infantry and little less than a thousand cavalry.”¹ Adding these figures to the total arrived at before, the size of Alexander’s army as he marched out pursuing Darius from Babylon can be numbered at about 50,000 men comprising foot soldiers and cavalry; About 6000 cavalry and 44,000 foot soldiers. This number is of course very similar to the figure given by Arrian as Alexander marched into the battle of Gaugamela. Diodorus details the battle and is very clear to say that Alexander received his reinforcements following the great battle, so if the sources are talking about the same soldiers, there is a vast discrepancy.

1 DS, XVII 65

2 Arrian, III 1
 TROPAS DE ALEJANDRO AL LLEGAR A ASIA

“seven thousand allies…five thousand mercenaries…Odrysians, Triballians and Illyrians accompanied him…there were eighteen hundred Macedonians…eighteen hundred Thessalians…nine hundred Thracian and Paeonian…”¹ Diodorus tells us that when Alexander received reinforcements from Antipeter following Gaugemela, the reinforcements were from all over Greece and Macedonia.

1 DS, XVII 17.3

RECLUTAMIENTO DE EGIPCIOS, ASIÁTICOS, JINETES PERSAS Y TROPAS INDIAS

bATALLA DE ISSOS
 The size of the Hellenic army may not have exceeded 40,000 men, including their other allies, led by Alexander. Alexander's army may have consisted of about 22,000 phalangites and hoplites, 13,000 peltasts, and 5,850 cavalry

 El ejército de Alejandro consistía en 12 000 falangitas, 3000 hipaspistas, 7000 hoplitas. La caballería de Alejandro tenía 2100 hetairoi, 2100 tesalios, 600 prodromoi, 760 griegos y 300 peonios. Alejandro también contaba con hostigadores compuestos por 6000 tracios, 5000 griegos, 1000 ilirios y 1000 cretenses. 

 BATALLA DEL GRANICUS
32,000 infantry (12,000 Macedonians, 5,000 mercenaries, 7,000 Greeks, 7,000 Odrysians, Triballians and Illyrians, and 1,000 archers)
5,100 cavalry (1,800 Macedonians, 1,800 Thessalians, 600 other Greeks, and 900 Thracians and Paeonians)

bATALLA DE GAUGAMELA
 Alexander commanded Greek forces from his kingdom of Macedon and the Hellenic League, along with Greek mercenaries and levies from the Paeonian and Thracian tributary peoples. According to Arrian, the most reliable historian of Alexander (who is believed to be relying on the work of the eyewitness Ptolemy), his forces numbered 7,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry. Most historians agree that the Macedonian army consisted of 31,000 heavy infantry, including mercenaries and hoplite from other allied Greek states in reserve, with an additional 9,000 light infantry consisting mainly of peltasts with some archers. The size of the Greek mounted arm was about 7,000.^[1]
Macedonios: El ejército sumaba 7.000 jinetes y 40.000 infantes. La caballería pesada de élite de Alejandro eran los Hetairoi (Compañeros) y estaba formada por la nobleza macedonia, que acompañaba a Alejandro en esta batalla y fueron el factor decisivo en la batalla. El resto de la caballería se dividía en jinetes tesalios (pesados), caballería tracia (ligera) y algunos jinetes griegos. La infantería de Alejandro se dividía en pesada, la falange y los hipaspistas (cuerpo especializado que cubría los huecos de la poco flexible falange) y la infantería ligera, tracios, agrianos (estos últimos lanzadores de jabalinas que destrozaron a los carros en esta batalla) y hoplitas griegos que intervinieron para cubrir la retaguardia de la falange. 

Alejandría de Egipto

Los catafractos

http://comitatus.net/greekcataphract.html

The Seleucid CavalryAsclepiodotus (1.3) using Poseidonius gives some pointers on Greek cavalry. But Aelian (2. 11-13) and Arrian (4. 1-6) are more useful. Both give us cataphracts and unarmoured cavalry (aphraktoi). The unarmoured cavalry are further divided into a sort of lancer (doratophoroi, sarisophorai, kontophoroi, xystophoroi or lochophoroi depending on the weapon) and missile cavalry (akrobolistai). The cavalry with shorter spears could also carry shields (thureoi) and were called thureophoroi. Akrobolistai could use horse archery, throw javelins as "Tarentines" or hippakontista in Aelian (3.13). Some Tarentines could throw javelins and encage in combat.

La caballería seléucida

Asclepiodotus (1.3) usando a Posidonio da algunas indicaciones sobre la caballería griega. Pero Eliano (2. 11-13) y Arriano (4. 1-6) son más útiles. Ambos nos hablan de catafractos y caballería sin coraza (aphraktoi). La caballería sin coraza se divide a su vez en una especie de lancero (doratophoroi, sarisophorai, kontophoroi, xystophoroi o lochophoroi dependiendo del arma) y en caballería de proyéctil (akrobolistai). La caballería con lanzas más cortas también podría llevar escudos (thureoi) y eran llamados thureophoroi. Akrobolistai podrían ser arqueros a caballo, lanzadores de jabalinas como los "tarentinos" o hippakontista en Eliano (3.13). Algunos tarentinos podrían lanzar jabalinas y entrar en combate.

In terms of the Seleucids the cavalry at the Daphnae parade in around 166 BC are described in Polybius (30.25.3-11). We are probably looking at a cadre of regiments which could be expanded in war time. The cataphracts are described as wearing purple surcoats, many embroidered in gold with animal designs, probably elephants and bees, typical Seleucid badges. Man and horses were both armoured. We don't read of cataphracts in the Seleucid army until Livy in 192 BC, and they are at Magnesia in 190 BC. But they may have been around since Antiochus the Great (210-206 BC).

En cuanto a los Seléucidas la caballería en el desfile de Dafne en torno al 166 a. C. es descrita en Polibio (30.25.3-11). Probablemente nos encontramos ante un grupo de regimientos que podría ampliarse en tiempos de guerra. Los catafractos son descritos usando sobretodos de color púrpura, muchos bordado de oro con diseños de animales, probablemente elefantes y abejas, insignias seléucidas típicas. Hombres y caballos estaban acorazados. No oimos hablar de los catafractos en el ejército seléucida hasta Livio en 192 a. C., y los encontramos en Magnesia en el 190 antes de Cristo. Pero pueden haber estado presentes desde Antíoco el Grande (210-206 a. C.).

They were probably non-Greeks, such as Iranians. People normally paint such troops very much like Parthian and Sasanian armoured cavalry. But there is very little evidence of Selucid cataphracts. There is a set of armour from Ai-Khanoum in Afghanistan using both scale and lamellar which does mirror the Pergamon reliefs which are well known. But the senior regiment, the Agema or "those that lead" were probably Medes and armed as cataphracts. As were the next regiment, the Nisaian. The Companions the Friends are probably Greek/Macedonians who are almost as heavily armed as cataphracts.

So, ignoring the other regiments you have Median and Iranian cataphracts, plus slightly lighter armed Hellenistic units perhaps using more western inspired plate armour.

In terms of weapons Plutarch writes that Armenian cataphracts used the kontos in 69 BC. He also mentions that the knees were left bare. No other weapons are mentioned in relation to Hellenistic cataphracts.

Conclusion

It is hard to escape the conclusion that a Seleucid cataphract would be relatively eastern, using lamellar and scale with limited western influences. They would be probably be armed with a kontos, a two handed weapon of at least 12 feet. The kontos was probably heavier than the old xyston, and used two-handed. It may have been an eastern weapon, or not. They would not have used shields, if nothing else because it would be hard to wear armour on the left arm and carry any form of pelta.

And they would have formed alongside "Macedonian" elite units, slightly less heavily armoured, perhaps using shields and 9 foot weapons. A sort of almost cataphract!

La evolución de la infantería helenística

La evolución de la infantería helenística

Artículo de historia militar en inglés

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html

Armas, equipo y tácticas de los tracios odrisios

Artículo en inglés

http://www.academia.edu/738235/Odyrsian_arms_equipment_and_tactics

Caballería helenística

I´m sorry for my late reply, my PC is crashed. I also done some more little research/reading. Now I have a day off in work, so I finally find the time for this post.

First I don´t understand why Lonchophoroi Hippeis are armed with heavy javelins instead of xyston when they are Hellenistic medium close combat cavalry and they don´t have skirmish ability (I know Xenophon and his advises about cavalry equipment). During the Macedonian conquest of Persian empire in close cavalry combat the xyston was proved more efficient than heavy javelins which were used by the Persian cavalry. Before the battle of Gaugamela even the Persian heavy cavalry was equiped with copy of xyston to face the Macedonian heavy cavalry. It´s against the military logic to change superior weapon of Macedonian origin by Hellenistic powers proud of their Macedonian heritage to heavy javelins.

Here are just few quotations from the books I have:

„The cavalry spear in general use throughout the late Classical and Hellenistic periods was called the xyston, or 'whittled' spear. Its length is not given in the ancient sources, and we do not know if this varied over time. A whole class of cavalry, the xystophoroi or 'lancers', came into being during the Hellenistic period, named after their principal weapon. It is generally thought that Hellenistic cavalry began to use shields only after the Galatian invasions of Greece, which began in 279 BC. These were wooden, sometimes coverd in hide or felt, circular in shape, and large – over a metre (39–40in) in diameter, covering the rider from neck to thigh. They were of two main varieties. The first was reinforced in the centre by a large, circular, bronze boss (umbo). The second was reinforced with a smaller 'barleyvorn'-shaped umbo set on spina (reinforcing rib) across the front. The latter type only seems to have become popular in the 2nd century BC.“ (Macedonian Armies after Alexander 323 – 168 BC, Nicholas Sekunda, 2012, p. 9)

„For the study of the equipment and the subdivision of the Seleucid regular and Guard cavalry, information must be sought for the most part in sources outside those concerned with the Seleucid kingdom. The 'regular' horseman from Alexander on wore breastplates and carried a xyston, to which Diadochs added the shield. Antiochus' right wing in his battle against Molon included xystophoroi cavalry (Polyb. 5.53.2), and Flamininus in his address to the Achaeans described the Seleucid cavalry as 'lonchophoroi and xystophoroi' (Plut. Flam. 17.5). From the battle of Panion onwards, Seleucid regular cavalry seem to have been fully armoured (Polyb. 16.17.6, 30.25.6, Livy 37.40.6, 11)“ (in The Seleucid army, B. Bar-Kochva, 1976, p. 74)

https://books.google.es/books?id=z0sHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=necropolis+of+Shiabty&source=bl&ots=esZFcMIUDo&sig=s9th8CyKAQxFPDX00ioraNOXUwI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi00IqV5_rPAhWCnRoKHQOoAL8Q6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=necropolis%20of%20Shiabty&f=false


„The relief on the trilingual stele of the Raphia Decree represents the emblematic Figure of Ptolemy IV as a Mecedonian cavalryman with a spear (see Figure 4.3). Earlier non-royal represantation of cavalry of the guard have also been preserved, generally in a funerary context, for example the funeral stele of a Macedonian officer from the late fourth century BC in Alexandria (necropolis of Shiabty) with chiton, cuirass, cloak and a long Macedonian spear, but no helmet (see Figure 4.4). Asclepiodotus and other writers of Tactics refer to such cavalryman as “spear-bearing“ (doratophoroi) or “lance-bearing“ (xystophoroi). They normally wore helmets, while the propagandist representation of Ptolemy IV shows him with the Egyptian double crown. Other essential elements of the equipment were boots and a saffron cloak, probably with purple borders, like those of Alexander’s companions. That boots were closely associated with soldiers in Alexandria is clear from Theocritus’ Idyll 15, where two women on their way to the festival of Adonis in Alexandria describe with some irritation the crowd as “all army boots and uniforms.”
There was great diversity of types of cavalry in the Hellenistic period, and sources to reconstruct the equipment used in the Ptolemaic army are scarce. In the first book of his On the Erythraean Sea, Agatharcides reports that Ptolemy II equipped 100 cavalrymen hired in the Aegean with Kushitestyle quilted armor.75 Around the same time some Hellenistic cavalrymen began to use shields, although this is not attested in Egypt.“ (Army and Sociaty in Ptolemaic Egyt, Christelle Fischer-Bovet, 2014, p. 129 - 131)

Los siguientes fragmentos están sacado del libro El ejército y la sociedad en el Egipto ptolemaico, Christelle Fischer-Bovet, 2014, p. 129 - 131.

"Había gran diversidad de tipos de caballería en el período helenístico, y las fuentes para reconstruir el equipo usado en el ejército ptolemaico son escasas. En el primer libro de su "En el mar de Eritrea", Agatharcides informa de que Ptolomeo II equipó a 100 jinetes contratados en el Egeo con armadura acolchada de estilo kushita. Por las mismas fechas algunos jinetes helenísticos comenzaron a usar escudos, aunque esto no está atestiguado para Egipto."

"Sekunda reconstruyó el traje y el equipo de la caballería pesada de la guardia sobre la base de representaciones pertenecientes al Sarcófago de Alejandro, dos estelas y una pintura mural. Los jinetes usaban un manto (clámide) de color amarillo azafrán con el borde púrpura, una túnica (quitón) blanca, botas castañas, una coraza compuesta y probablemente un casco beocio, y más tarde una coraza musculada quizás hecha de bronce y el casco llamado tracio. Sus armas ofensivas y defensivas eran una lanza larga, una espada colgada de un tahalí y un escudo redondo.

„Sekunda reconstructed the dress and heavy cavalry equipment of the guard on the basis or representations on the Alexander sarcophagus, two steles and a wall paiting. They wore a saffron-yellow cloak (chlamys) with purple border, a white tunic (chiton), brown boots, a composite cuirass and probably a Boetian helmet, and later a muscle cuirass perhaps made of a bronze and a so-called Thracian helmet. Their offensive and defensive weapons were a long spear, a sword slung on a baldric and a round shield.“ (Army and Sociaty in Ptolemaic Egyt, Christelle Fischer-Bovet, 2014, p. 150)


Also here are two pictures of ancient art, which shown the Hellenistic cavalry with xyston and shield (there are also several modern illustrations):

Imagen del arte antiguo que muestra a la caballería helenística con xyston y escudo:
Denario romano de L. M. Torquatus del año 113/112 a. C. La cruz de estas monedas muestra un jinete helenísticio del siglo II a. C. El original helenístico es desconocido hoy día (en esta moneda aparece una letra griega). El jinete está usando la lanza xyston, el escudo con una spina de refuerzo, el casco helenístico tardío típico.

Roman denarius of L. M. Torquatus from 113/112 BC. The reverse of these coins depicts Hellenistic cavalryman from 2nd century BC. The Hellenistic original is unknown to this date (there is a Greek letter shown on this coin). The cavalryman is using xyston spear, shield with a reinforcing spina, typical late Hellenistic helmet (the similar helme tis shown on the famous tomb of Lyson and Kallikles).

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?247598-EB-Twitter-updates-Discussion/page115

How the Hellenistic reforms works fo cavalry? Does the reforms only adds new units?

I think that after the reforms the Lonchophoroi Hippeis should replace the Xystophoroi units as their evolution and they should be using shields and xyston spear. I also think that Hetairoi and bodyguards units should be upgraded after reforms thru Med2TW armour upgrades with shields, xyston spears and helmets popular in late Hellenistic to represent the evolution (if this is possible in Med2TW engine). I believe (based on posted posts – monuments, coins, terracottas and quotations) that the Hellenistic cavalry wasn´t the same in the whole Hellenistic period, but there was a evolution and that many units started using shields for better protection as Hellenistic armies in later period faced many enemies (Rome, various barbarian tribes, Parthians, civil wars, other Hellenistic powers) and they tried to lower their casualities.

I´m not saying this should be done in the next release, but it will be great if the EB team will debate this idea/suggestion.

Also it will be great if the Hellenistic generals and officers will be reworked in the future, they really needs some upgrade. I´m not saying this should be done in the next release

I´m sorry for this long post, I hope you will not start to dislike me

tomySVK, no need to apologise for your post being long - especially when it's well-reasoned and supported by evidence. That's exactly the sort of critique we like to have. You've hit upon an issue with Hellenistic cavalry - that there are a number of sources, for a number of kingdoms, across a span of time giving a variety of potential panoplies.

Our initial concept was something like this:

These are the standard cavalry of the mid-Hellenistic period. Armed with a hoplite-style panoply, often including greaves, but certainly a thorax of some sort, helmet, and a shield, either the aspis or the cavalry thureos, a flat round shield with thimble spina. We know they carried swords and melee spears, the latter of which may have been near kontos size, but there is also quite good evidence that they carried lonchai as well, throwing spears. They were meant to be versatile cavalry with high survivability, a reflection of the limited numbers of cavalry available to most Hellenistic powers. It is significant that they were not particularly important to the Seleucids, although they do seem to have been fielded in Asia Minor before Magnesia, perhaps as part of local armies than as part of the Seleucid army. I'd still suggest we have a Seleucid variant.
As far as our historians are concerned, there's evidence for both spears and javelins. At first we resolved upon (heavy) javelins and spears, but it later evolved into javelins and swords for greater melee capability. We've tested them in custom battles in melee, and they are beasts.

However, I must correct one misapprehension you have - Lonchophoroi Hippeis are not a replacement for the Xystophoroi. As far as cavalry go, the following substitutions happen with the later "Thorakitai Reform" around 222BC:
Hippeis are replaced by Lonchophoroi Hippeis
Hippakontistai are replaced by Thureopherontes Hippeis

At present, there isn't a reformed replacement for the Xystophoroi; but I'm now wondering whether they need a late, shielded version. There's lots of lancers available to the Hellenistic factions, but all of them are heavily-armoured and unshielded (Thessalikoi, Lydian Promachoi, Ptolemaic Kleruchoi Agema, Molosson Agema, Hetairoi). A lighter, but shielded lancer would be a different thing.



As to bodyguard cavalry, I seem to remember there's a technical hurdle - I don't think they can be upgraded. I'm not even sure you can change the unit they use after the start of the game.



https://www.deamoneta.com/auctions/search/106?c=1.+Roman+Republican

http://stevebrinkman.ancients.info/anonymous/

https://es.scribd.com/doc/29391428/Armies-of-the-Macedonian-and-Punic-Wars-359-BC-to-146-BC


https://www.google.es/search?q=%22Phil+Barker%22+Armies+of+the+Macedonian+and+Punic+Wars&client=ubuntu&hs=S7I&channel=fs&biw=1280&bih=856&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPmsG9_7bPAhXJQBQKHSDaD4oQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=MtxZ154uM_jH3M%3A

TOLOMEOS IMÁGENES

https://twitter.com/hashtag/phalangite

https://twitter.com/Armored_76

mercenarios gálatas