Slitherine

Finally getting round to asking a question that has been puzzling me ever since FOGAM came out.

I always thought the Seleucids were particularly strong in heavy cavalry. Yet they are lumped together with all the other early Successors just getting a few extra light horse.

In the later period they can field up to 12 heavy cavalry which seems a lot but their contemporaries the Attalid Pergamenes get 8.
Now according to Duncan Head’s Armies of the Macedonian and Punic wars the Attalids “…1000 horse took part in the Roman war with Macedon in 171. This seems to be the largest Pergamene force on record; the kingdom was never a major military power.”

Whereas under the Seleucid entry “… 6000 of these regular cavalry at Magnesia, providing the cataphracts. This is the highest strength found and must represent the maximum turnout of the settler cavalry.”

On top of this they also had the two guard units, Agema and Companions, each 1000 strong.

So, has there been more recent information about Seleucid cavalry numbers? Most previous lists (if I remember correctly) have been more generous (I have the figures to show that!!) but as I know perfectly well previous lists provide no evidence whatsoever .

I am a wargamer not a historian and am genuinely interested to know the thinking from more learned types on this forum.

Try the Later Seleucids from Rise of Rome[\u]. They get elite cavalry or superior cataphracts. I believe you can take lots, but there's too many other cool toys to also afford the cavalry too.

I recently saw a Seleucid army that was 75 percent mounted...Parthian ally plus lots of other cav. Again this is from the later Seleucid list in ror, that would cover magnesia and later. I believe it's rather overly generous on the quality of the Seleucid army.....

Also remember the authors proportioned up some armies so they could field 800 points armies that "looked right" in their view.

I think that is how Pergamene got the large amounts.

The Late Seleucid list from Rise of Rome represents what is usually considered a Seleucid army, including all the campaigns of Antiochus III the Great, e.g. Raphia, Magnesia, campaigns against the Parthians and Graeco-Bactrians, and it does allow a substantial amount of mounted. (Similarly the Later Macedonian list in RoR represents the MAcedonian kingdom after it was established by Antigonus Gonatas.) The Seleucids in the Early Successor list in Immortal Fire represent the army during the initial wars of the Diadochoi after Alexander's death before the three stable Successor kingdoms were established and in those battles I do not think that Seleucus had a major advantage in numbers of mounted compared to Ptolemy, Antigonus Monopthalmos/Demetrios, Eumenes, Lysimachos, Antipater/Cassander, etc.

The proportions of troops in the lists are more based on the percentages of troops used in historical armies rather than the absolute numbers that could be raised. So the percentage of cavalry in a Pergamene army could be similar to other Hellenistic armies even if the total numbers of troops that Pergamum could raise would be much less than the Seleucid kingdom could at its peak.

Chris

Appreciate the responses thanks.

I wasn't aware about some armies being "proportioned up" to make them look right I must admit.