Slitherine

Yaitz331 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:52 am I'm pretty late here (more than a year late, but hey), but I've got to mention the excellent book "Judas Maccabaeus - The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids" by Betzalel Bar-Kochva. It's an absolute must-have for anyone interested in early Maccabean military history, going into depth on the general tactics, army makeup, specific tactics in some well-recorded battles, and manpower of both Judah Maccabee and the Seleucids.
Among other things, it gives very strong evidence for Judah having had cavalry forces from the Tobiads, a semi-independent Jewish duchy in Ammanitis which lasted until Antiochus IV destroyed it.
In essence, his argument (which is very well argued) is that Judah's army was as usually believed through the purification of the Temple, but after that, when he had to go on the offensive and had territory he had to defend, he restructured the army into a more typical Hellenistic army, with cavalry and even heavy infantry. Read the book for more details; you will not regret it.
It's hard to find, but I was able to get a PDF. You can find it here on my Google Drive.
I would love if the first Maccabean army in the game currently was split in two; one for the first stage of the revolt (the first as it is now), and one for the second stage (with the additions of Tobiad Cavalry and some Heavy Foot), in addition the later Hasmonean army and the Herodian army.

thanks for the book

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:00 pmWould you like to suggest specific changes and dates for this later list?

Sure.
Until 164 BCE, it's fine; afterwards, replace the poorly armed rabble with above average "Toubiad/Tobiad Cavalry", below average cavalry, and raw pike phalanx.

NikiforosFokas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:05 pmthanks for the book

You're welcome.

Yaitz331 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:08 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:00 pmWould you like to suggest specific changes and dates for this later list?

Sure.
Until 164 BCE, it's fine; afterwards, replace the poorly armed rabble with above average "Toubiad/Tobiad Cavalry", below average cavalry, and raw pike phalanx.

Any information on cavalry equipment?

What is the evidence for the pike phalanx? (The War of the Sons of Light vs the Sons of Darkness describes what are clearly thureophoroi rather than pikemen)

(Feel free to quote the book you cited, which I have not yet had time to look at).

Should we in fact be moving the start date of the 110-64 BC list back to 163 BC?

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:31 pmAny information on cavalry equipment?

What is the evidence for the pike phalanx? (The War of the Sons of Light vs the Sons of Darkness describes what are clearly thureophoroi rather than pikemen)

(Feel free to quote the book you cited, which I have not yet had time to look at).

Should we in fact be moving the start date of the 110-64 BC list back to 163 BC?

No, I don't have any.

Josephus mentions Jewish phalanxes in his description of the Battle of Beth Zecharia, taken from a non-Jewish source, Nicolaus of Damascus.
The descriptions of the battles of Elasa and Azotus. At Elasa, on a gently sloping plain, a Jewish infantry force held back a large Seleucid infantry force for a long time before defeat, which came through a disastrous cavalry engagement on the flanks. It would have been impossible for light or even medium infantry to have held back heavy phalanx infantry for so long on flat terrain. At Azotus, it's even clearer, with the Jewish infantry forming an absorption formation to absorb the ambush of horse archers set by Apollonius; the only kind of infantry which could have simultaneously formed an absorption formation and prevented the Seleucid phalanxes from charging would have been phalangites. However, it's virtually certain that the Jewish phalangites were vastly inferior to the Seleucid ones, though capable of holding for a time; raw phalanxes capture that well, I think.

No, John Hyrcanus' reforms still turned the Jewish military from a partially Hellenistic one to a fully Hellenistic one. So, for instance, the Jewish army should still have Zealots until then.

Yaitz331 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:54 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:31 pmAny information on cavalry equipment?

What is the evidence for the pike phalanx? (The War of the Sons of Light vs the Sons of Darkness describes what are clearly thureophoroi rather than pikemen)

(Feel free to quote the book you cited, which I have not yet had time to look at).

Should we in fact be moving the start date of the 110-64 BC list back to 163 BC?

No, I don't have any.

Josephus mentions Jewish phalanxes in his description of the Battle of Beth Zecharia, taken from a non-Jewish source, Nicolaus of Damascus.

But to the ancient writers a phalanx did not mean a pike phalanx. Any heavy/medium infantry in battle array were called a phalanx.

The descriptions of the battles of Elasa and Azotus. At Elasa, on a gently sloping plain, a Jewish infantry force held back a large Seleucid infantry force for a long time before defeat, which came through a disastrous cavalry engagement on the flanks. It would have been impossible for light or even medium infantry to have held back heavy phalanx infantry for so long on flat terrain. At Azotus, it's even clearer, with the Jewish infantry forming an absorption formation to absorb the ambush of horse archers set by Apollonius; the only kind of infantry which could have simultaneously formed an absorption formation and prevented the Seleucid phalanxes from charging would have been phalangites. However, it's virtually certain that the Jewish phalangites were vastly inferior to the Seleucid ones, though capable of holding for a time; raw phalanxes capture that well, I think.

I think this is rather the tail wagging the dog, to say that they could stand up to pikes so they must have been pikes. In fact Zealots in the game will stand up to pikes quite well - maybe better than Raw pikes would.

It also presupposes that most of the Seleucid infantry were phalangites, whereas in backwater actions like these (from the Seleucid point of view), they may have been mostly thureophoroi, particular at Azotos where the Seleucid force largely consisted of city militia/garrisons.

If the Maccabeans had already fielded pike phalanxes, it seems unlikely that the later army (as represented in the "War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness") would so clearly consist mainly of thureophoroi.

We have included some pike phalanxes in the later army, but it is purely speculative and may never have happened.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:28 pm

Yaitz331 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:54 pmJosephus mentions Jewish phalanxes in his description of the Battle of Beth Zecharia, taken from a non-Jewish source, Nicolaus of Damascus.

But to the ancient writers a phalanx did not mean a pike phalanx. Any heavy/medium infantry in battle array were called a phalanx.

As per Bar-Kochva, "At to the term 'phalanx', it had a variety of meanings... In the Hellenistic period, however, the term was confined to sarissa-equipped units."

The descriptions of the battles of Elasa and Azotus. At Elasa, on a gently sloping plain, a Jewish infantry force held back a large Seleucid infantry force for a long time before defeat, which came through a disastrous cavalry engagement on the flanks. It would have been impossible for light or even medium infantry to have held back heavy phalanx infantry for so long on flat terrain. At Azotus, it's even clearer, with the Jewish infantry forming an absorption formation to absorb the ambush of horse archers set by Apollonius; the only kind of infantry which could have simultaneously formed an absorption formation and prevented the Seleucid phalanxes from charging would have been phalangites. However, it's virtually certain that the Jewish phalangites were vastly inferior to the Seleucid ones, though capable of holding for a time; raw phalanxes capture that well, I think.

I think this is rather the tail wagging the dog, to say that they could stand up to pikes so they must have been pikes. In fact Zealots in the game will stand up to pikes quite well - maybe better than Raw pikes would.

It also presupposes that most of the Seleucid infantry were phalangites, whereas in backwater actions like these (from the Seleucid point of view), they may have been mostly thureophoroi, particular at Azotos where the Seleucid force largely consisted of city militia/garrisons.

If the Maccabeans had already fielded pike phalanxes, it seems unlikely that the later army (as represented in the "War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness") would so clearly consist mainly of thureophoroi.

We have included some pike phalanxes in the later army, but it is purely speculative and may never have happened.

Well, I did simplify the argument, forgetting that you're also a professional in this. Sorry for that.
In more depth, Elasa shows that they had heavy or semi-heavy infantry, and Azotus shows they had phalanx units; not primarily because they held back the enemy forces, but because they prevented them from taking advantage of a center weakened from horse archer fire.
Elasa and Beth Zecharia were both royal armies, consisting of the main Seleucid forces, with even the elite Royal Guard taking part at Beth Zecharia. Azotus wasn't royal, but again, the primary argument there is not the standing up to the infantry, but the combination of doing that while absorbing horse archer fire points to phalanxes.
The argument isn't that they consisted purely of phalanx units, it's that they had phalanx units in addition to their plain medium infantry, which is why a combination of Zealots and raw phalanxes would work well.
As for the War of the Sons of Light, I don't know. I'm taking this wholesale from the book I cited; this isn't my research. However, I assume the author has done his, since he's also written a generally well-received-by-professional-military-historians book on the Seleucid army. And he does bring up the War of the Sons of Light in his book in other contexts, so he definitely knows about it.

I possess and have read his book on the Seleucid army. I guess I also need to read this other one.

So have you had time to read it?

Yaitz331 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:09 pm So have you had time to read it?

Not yet. It is on my to do list.

The Tabletop mod has just the kind of Jewish zealot forces you are looking for. I recommend you download it asap.

antiochosvii wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:55 pm The Tabletop mod has just the kind of Jewish zealot forces you are looking for. I recommend you download it asap.

I didn't think my Jewish lists were very different from the vanilla ones, apart from a few minor changes?

Oh i didn't realize vanilla had the Zealot impact foot and rebel spearmen. I thought that was a TT addition.

It has been truly ages since I played vanilla's custom campaigns.

antiochosvii wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:28 am Oh i didn't realize vanilla had the Zealot impact foot and rebel spearmen. I thought that was a TT addition.

It has been truly ages since I played vanilla's custom campaigns.

The Zealots are in the vanilla game. The Rebel Spearmen are a TT Mod addition, but they are just graphically different, functionally they are identical to the Irregular Foot used in the vanilla list.

cheers

Paul

Having finally got around to reading Bar-Kochva's Maccabees book, here are the proposed revised lists, with also the Late Hasmonean list for comparison. (All at 1200 points)

The finalised changes will be in the patch accompanying the release of the next DLC.

A bit surprising; one of the lists seems to have a higher (potential) Pike % than Seleucids. I would then at least give the Seleucids more optional Pikes.

Armoured Noble Cavalry? Did they even have an aristocracy as such?? Sounds rather unbiblical.

Thracians with Rhomphaia? I didn´t know they used mercenaries from afar??

sIg3b wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:00 pm A bit surprising; one of the lists seems to have a higher (potential) Pike % than Seleucids. I would then at least give the Seleucids more optional Pikes.

At 1200 points, the current Seleucid 166-125 BC list gets 5 units of pike, including Argyraspids, and the revised Seleucid list will get 7. Ptolemaic lists will also get more pikes.

Armoured Noble Cavalry? Did they even have an aristocracy as such?? Sounds rather unbiblical.

Thracian mercenaries. See below.

Thracians with Rhomphaia? I didn´t know they used mercenaries from afar??

"It has been fairly convincingly postulated that the 3 Thracian cohorts and 3 Thracian alae of the Roman army of Syria in 88 AD may have been Herod's old Thracian units."

We give them the benefit of the doubt.