HELLENISTIC SYRIAN MILITARY SYSTEMS

 

The military systems of the Hellenized Syrian states is fascinating to me because they evolved through several phases in which the material and tactical system of the indigenous western Asian peoples were syncretized with influences drawn from a number of peoples whose origins lay outside western Asia—the Greeks and Macedonians (ca. 330-63 BCE), the Parthians and Persians (ca. 247 BCE-643 CE), and the Romans (ca. 50 BCE-273 CE). Depending on the Syrian state in question, this meant a combination of the elements of the military systems of the pre-Islamic Arabs, western Semites (Judaeans, Aramaeans, and Ituraeans), eastern Semites (Akkadians), Kassites and Elamites, Armenians, Greco-Macedonians, Iranians (Medes, Persians, Parthians), and Romans. A real melting pot of Late Classical cultural influences. To understand the development of the martial systems represented by this gallery, I think it is useful to divide the period into four stages of development—Pre-Hellenistic (ca. 586-250 BCE), Early Hellenistic (ca. 250-125 BCE), Later Hellenistic (ca. 125 BCE-224 CE), and Post-Hellenistic (ca. 224-643 CE). Within this temporal framework, each of the states discussed herein were also generally internally divided into three primary social groups—those that lived primarily in the cities (Greek, polis), those that lived in the rural hinterland (Greek, chora), and those that lived on the desert fringes (Aramaic, midbar, “wilderness”)—each of whose military contribution to the state, and their ability to access and utilize developments in military technology, were governed by socio-economic factors. Generally speaking, the city-dwellers were the most highly Hellenized, Romanized, and/or Persicized (depending on location), while local traditions became stronger and stronger as you moved through the agricultural and semi-nomadic peoples of the hinterland to the nomadic tribes of the wilderness. In general, the Pre-Hellenistic Period encompasses the military system of the Syrian peoples that emerged from the long process of Akkadian, Aramaean, Arab, Caucasian, and western Semitic cultural assimilation that had reached its zenith during the Neo-Assyrian (911-605 BCE) and Neo-Babylonian (626-539 BCE) empires, followed by Aryan/Iranian cultural influence under the Median (678-549 BCE) and Achaemenid Persian (550-330 BCE) empires. The Pre-Hellenistic Period ends with the conquests of Alexander the Great (ca. 330-323 BCE), the Wars of the Diadochi (322-275 BCE) and the early decades of the Seleukid Empire (ca. 312-250 BCE). During this period, we can trace the evolution of native traditions into their early Hellenistic forms, although only a handful of early Syrian states emerged as independent polities (Nabataea, Adiabene, Atropatene, Palmyra, Hatra). The Early Hellenistic Period is basically analogous to the dynamic expansionary phase of the Seleukid Dynasty, followed by the growing influence of the Parthians, which saw a unique blend of Greco-Macedonian and Iranian elements. The Later Hellenistic Period was marked by the decline of the Seleukids, the emergence of the remaining states covered by this gallery as independent political entities, the growing power and influence of the Parthians, and also the advent and inexorable expansion of the Romans in the eastern Mediterranean. Parthian influence was paramount to most of the eastern Syrian states (Elymais, Charakene, Atropatene, Adiabene, and Hatra), while Greco-Roman influence steadily grew in the west (Nabataea, Emesa, Osrohene, Palmyra). Finally, the Post-Hellenistic Period is characterized by the interminable conflict between the Roman Empire and the Arsakid and Sassanid dynasties of Persia. Here, many of the Syrian states reached the height of their militarization and socio-economic influence, although the fundamental weakness of their strategic position (trapped between two great warring empires) led to the ultimate conquest or annexation of all of them. Ironically, the tendency of the Romans and Persians to subdue native dynasts in border regions, ostensibly to create better security by projecting imperial power and bureaucratic control into the frontiers (rather than relying on buffer-state allies), seems actually to have created a ripe atmosphere for the initial Muslim conquests in southwestern Asia, bringing the period of the Hellenistic Syrian states to its final denouement by the early seventh century CE (i.e., nativists resented their subordination to distant imperial monarchs and their oppressive bureaucratic administrations, not to mention cultural imperialism, and in many places the Islamicized Arabs were able to capitalize on Arabo-Aramaean resentment, as well as the promise of belonging to a great civilization that was proud of its Semitic ethnicity). 

 

 

CAVALRY

Domesticated horses were introduced to Mesopotamia circa 2300-2000 BCE, and use of horses in warfare became common throughout southwestern Asia by about 1000 BCE. Horse-mounted cavalry had begun to replace chariots by the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (ca. 539 BCE), although it was the Medes and Persians (and to a lesser extent the Skythians and Dahae) who put the final nail in the coffin for chariotry (ca. 678-330 BCE)—compared with cavalry, chariots were relatively slow, lacked maneuverability, were more expensive to equip, and lacked tactical flexibility (in particular, anything but flat terrain could pose a serious hazard to chariots). Horse-rearing and equestrian skills were initially the province of the nobility, mainly because lands capable of sustaining horse herds in Syria-Mesopotamia were limited and therefore horses were something of a luxury commodity, but horse cavalry steadily gained in importance amongst the rural nobles and tribal groups as use of chariots declined. By the Neo-Assyrian (911-605 BCE) and Neo-Babylonian (626-539 BCE) empires, the Akkadian nobility and the Arabo-Aramaean nobility had largely assimilated in and around the growing cities and oasis outposts, connected through marriage alliances and by socio-political and economic interests. To this was added a stratum of Median and Persian nobles, garrisons, and administrators (ca. 678-330 BCE), followed by Greco-Macedonian nobles, garrisons, and administrators (ca. 331-250 BCE) after the conquests of Alexander and his successors. Thus, the influence of Iranian and Hellenistic martial practices was felt most strongly amongst the urban elites and the elites of the chora.

 

Syrian cavalry during the Pre-Hellenistic Period would have consisted of relatively well-equipped mounted fighters similar in equipment and tactical stance to contemporary Median and Persian cavalry—as nobles, they would have been able to afford a corselet (usually scale, laminated linen, or a combination of both, with a helmet and round bull-hide shield), as well as a sword, axe, and/or mace (the mace was often a symbol of nobility in Syria-Mesopotamia and the Iranian Plateau), although the primary weapon would have been a collection of javelins. These would be thrown at an enemy either from relatively static positions (maneuvering as necessary) or using cycling hit-and-fade attacks until it was deemed tactically expedient to charge into hand-to-hand combat or to ride down fleeing opponents. The wealthiest nobles would have equipped units of armed retainers in similar fashion to themselves, and these armed retainers would have accompanied the nobles into battle. The initial conquests of Alexander the Great and his successors would not have changed this much, with the minor exception that Greco-Macedonian aesthetics quickly gained traction (i.e., adoption of Greek language, cultural norms, and artistic styles came to be seen as being more civilized). Although the Macedonians had developed heavy cavalry lancer traditions under the influence of the Skythians and northern Thracians (they were armed and armored similarly to those of the Syrians, except they eschewed a shield in favor of a long two-handed lance called a sarissa), these early Macedonian cavalry lancers (hetairoi, “companions,” or agema, “guards”) were initially exclusive to the Macedonian elites, and their practices would not have filtered down to the subordinate Syrian nobility until the end of the Pre-Hellenistic Period (ca. 250 BCE). The Greco-Macedonian elite cavalry was itself heavily influenced by the Iranian heavy cavalry traditions practiced by those peoples Alexander and his Seleukid successors encountered on the Iranian Plateau and in Afghanistan (the Sakas, Dahae, Massagetae, and Bactrians). These were generally more heavily armored, hard-charging lancers, where most of the troopers wore substantial body armor (sometimes with leg and arm protection in addition to a helmet and corselet) and the elites in each cavalry formation also had armored horses (barding and chamfrons). The Greeks and Macedonians initially only adopted heavier body armor (i.e., scale and laminated linen gave way to metal cuirasses) for their heavy cavalrymen, colorfully referred to as klibanophoroi (“oven-men,” i.e., because the cuirasses baked the men in the hot sun of Syria-Mesopotamia-Iran-Bactria), although by the end of the Early Hellenistic Period (ca. 125 BCE) horse armor began to become more prevalent in Syria-Mesopotamia (initially frontal skirts, later full barding and chamfrons). Those Syrian elites who could afford it would have followed suit. Finally, during the Later Hellenistic Period (ca. 125 BCE-224 CE) we see the emergence of fully armored (man and beast) units of lancers, largely under the growing influence of the Parthians (known in Greek as kataphractoi, “covered in armor,” or in Pahlavi as grivpanvar, “neck-guard wearers,” after the distinctive armored ruff/gorget worn by many early Aryan cataphracts). Parthian influence had been felt toward the end of the Early Hellenistic Period (ca. 247-125 BCE), although adoption of Parthian heavy cavalry norms by the Syrians would not have become widespread until after the Parthians succeeded in consolidating their hold on Mesopotamia (ca. 138-125 BCE). Thereafter, as had happened when the Macedonians took over, there would have been a slow process of assimilation between native traditions and those of the new conquerors. Also during the Later Hellenistic Period, the Roman Empire expanded into Anatolia (ca. 133 BCE-14 CE), western Syria (ca. 64 BCE-135 CE), and Palestine (37 BCE-6 CE). The western Syrian states (Nabataea, Emesa, Osrohene, Palmyra) seem to have acted as conduits of Iranian influence to the eastern Mediterranean, and despite the strong tradition of infantry warfare represented by the Roman army, the evidence clearly points to the fact that even the western Syrian states developed cavalry traditions more in tune with the Parthians than with those of the Romans (the Romans did develop some units of eastern-style heavy cavalry and horse archers, but for the most part they preferred to rely on Syrian auxiliaries to fulfil these roles). Nevertheless, Greco-Roman cultural and aesthetic influence was much stronger in these states than in their eastern counterparts (Elymais, Charakene, Atropatene, Adiabene, and Hatra). Syrian urban elite cataphracts during the Later Hellenistic Period could be very heavily armed and armored, with substantial helmets (often including a mail or scale aventail and mail or plate cheek and face guards), long-sleeved mail hauberk sometimes supplemented with a scale or laminated linen cuirass, and often segmented plate arm and leg protection (metal or hardened leather). The long, two-handed lance, colorfully referred to by Latin writers as the contus (“barge-pole”), remained the primary weapon, with sword, axe, and/or mace as sidearms for close combat, and sometimes supplemented with a collection of javelins or a bow and arrows. During the Early Hellenistic Period, the norm for heavy cavalry lancers was relatively loose, more maneuverable formations, but by the Later Hellenistic Period we begin to see cataphracts whose tactical stance was something akin to mounted pikemen (i.e., close-order cavalry creating an inexorable lance hedge). This probably came about both as a result of the growing specialization of urban cavalrymen as armored lancers (only they could afford the equipment), and in response to the growing sophistication of infantry tactics in the region (the Greco-Macedonian and Roman phalanx, as well as massed bowmen and Persian-style mixed spear-bow formations). During the Post-Hellenistic Period (224-643 CE), the growing sophistication of nomadic cavalry (Sakas, Huns, Turks) in central Asia (due to the development of laminated bow technology, lamellar armor, improved saddles, and eventually stirrups) effected another revolution in heavy cavalry warfare as bows increasingly surpassed lances as the weapon of choice, lighter armor was developed to increase mobility, cavalry shields grew in importance, better saddles and stirrups gave cavalrymen a more secure seat, and coordination between armored and unarmored horse archers became more sophisticated (both essentially carrying out joint hit-and-fade tactics until a clear tactical advantage had been achieved, then both charging into hand-to-hand combat with the more heavily armored nobles in the lead). Although Greco-Parthian style cataphracts long clung to pride of place in Syria-Mesopotamia, there was a long period of back-and-forth technological escalation that saw cataphracts develop heavier armor, then add shields, then adapt to an increased importance for bows (even if only to ward off horse archers), then adoption of lighter but stronger mail-lamellar armor combinations that allowed greater mobility, and ending with the widespread adoption of composite cavalry equipment and tactics by the Sassanids (ca. 576 CE). Composite cavalry were essentially armored horse archers who, usually being nobles, could still afford extensive panoplies, but who needed to remain mobile in order to keep up with improved light cavalry horse archers. By the time composite cavalry became the norm in Syria-Mesopotamia, however, most of the Syrian states had been absorbed by either the Romans or the Sassanids (only Atropatene remained independent long enough to have possibly adopted composite cavalry as it became the norm).

 

The Hellenistic Syrian states were centered on urban centers (usually a collection of city-states, with one serving as the capital), but each city dominated a broad agricultural hinterland (chora) with subordinate suburban villages, and to protect the trade routes that criss-crossed the region outposts were maintained at oases, along roads and overland trade routes, and in frontier zones. The peasant levies drawn from the hinterland, and the mercenary guardsmen used to garrison the frontier and trade route outposts, were usually infantry (discussed below) because most of the arable land surrounding cities and oases was devoted to agriculture, and grazing land was valued at a premium (i.e., only the wealthy could afford to use arable land for horses rather than crops). No doubt, there were prosperous village headmen of the agricultural villages and tribal chiefs of the semi-nomadic tribes of goat and sheep herders who fought mounted when called upon, probably as light cavalry, but for the most part auxiliary light cavalry skirmishers were recruited from the nomadic tribes that lived on the dry steppe grasslands that lay between the arable lands of the city-states and oases and the deserts of Syria and Arabia. Although camels (discussed below) were far more common, the elites of these semi-nomadic tribes maintained close ties with the urban elites (the line between the two groups is sometimes blurred, tribal affiliations often crossing social strata), and they were able to maintain small horse herds on the seasonal grasses that became more lush during the winter months, moving their herds to feed on the stubble of the agricultural fields after the harvest (their mounts fertilizing the fields in return), or by securing access to the more reliable growth around oases. A skirmishing style of warfare suited these warriors, turning necessity into a virtue—with low population density and relatively few cavalry mounts, casualties were not easy to replace, and hit-and-fade tactics, subterfuge, ambush, and withdrawing before a superior enemy (sometimes to draw them into a disadvantageous position in the desert) were both effective and conserved resources. During the Pre-Hellenistic and Early Hellenistic periods, these rural light cavalry skirmishers would have been primarily javelinmen, like their urban counterparts, although mounted archery steadily gained in importance throughout the Later Hellenistic and Post-Hellenistic periods. This would have been particularly true of those states most heavily influenced by the Parthians.

 

CAMELRY

As mentioned, camels were far more numerous than horses in Syria-Mesopotamia, as well as in the adjacent desert regions of Arabia, and they were used both as beasts of burden (i.e., pack animals in overland trade or to carry baggage for an army) and as combat mounts. The advantages of war camels were that they were much taller than horses, giving camel-mounted bowmen or javelinmen the ability to provide overhead support to friendly infantry in front of them, as well as a height advantage when fighting hand-to-hand against horse-mounted opponents. In addition, horses that were not accustomed to camels were often made skittish when confronted by them, and the size and strength of camels also meant that warriors using them could carry larger loads of equipment without deleterious effects on mobility. On the downside, camels were slower and less agile than horses, they made a large target (in particular, the legs and neck were vulnerable), the height advantage could be negated by infantry (i.e., with the camel-mounted fighter sitting so high, infantrymen could duck out of reach and hamstring a camel mount), and camels are on average more irascible and difficult to control than horses. Despite the ubiquity and advantages of camels as mounts, most of the Syrian states eschewed camelry for cavalry—horse mounts gained high prestige amongst the Syrian nobility (urban, village, and tribe), while most camel-mounted troops would have used their camels primarily for transportation and would have dismounted to fight as infantry (essentially acting as a class known as mounted infantry to modern military historians). Most camel-mounted troops were bowmen, although caravan guards, who were occasionally mustered to join military campaigns, seem to have preferred to fight mounted as camelry. One notable exception is the cataphract camel corps fielded by Hatra (although the sources are unclear whether this was a Hatrene allied contingent supplied to the Parthians, or a Parthian adaptation to warfare in the desert). The sources are unclear on how effective these units proved to be, although the practice did not become widespread—this may simply have been due to the fact that such a camelry corps was not cost-effective (camels are substantially bigger than horses, and armoring them would have been expensive). Even amongst the nomads, camel-mounted infantry remained the norm until the introduction of improved camel saddles in the second and third centuries CE. Thereafter, camel-mounted troops became more important amongst the Arab tribes, although cavalry remained the highest prestige fighting arm.

 

INFANTRY

Foot bowmen usually made up the lion’s share of infantry fielded by the Hellenistic Syrian states. Most would have been unarmored peasant levies, trained to perform basic mass-archery in cohesive units or as skirmishers, although a minority of well-equipped royal guard bowmen would have been maintained by most Syrian monarchs. These units could be very well-equipped with mail or scale hauberks, substantial helmets, and a sword as a sidearm. These armored bowmen were the model on which the Romans based their units of “Syrian” bowmen. Greco-Macedonian colonization was focused on the cities, and during the later Pre-Hellenistic and Early Hellenistic periods many Syrian monarchs also maintained units of Greek-style (or mercenary Greek) thureophoroi/thyreophoroi/thorakitai/thorakites—lightly armored flexible infantry (helmet, scale, mail, or laminated linen cuirass, large oval shield) armed with thrusting spear, javelins, and sword. As Roman influence grew in western Syria, many of the western Syrian states (Nabataea, Osrohene, Emesa, Palmyra) developed imitation legionaries under Roman influence, while the prolonged conflict between the Romans and Parthians-Persians led to the development of more heavily armored auxiliary and garrison infantry on both sides of the borderlands (the paintings at Dura Europos show substantial scale and mail hauberks, mail or scale coifs, substantial wicker shields, and swords). The eastern Syrian states (Hatra, Elymais, Charakene, Adiabene, Atropatene) were more heavily influenced by the Parthians and Persians, and in these states the Hellenistic guard infantrymen were entirely replaced by guard bowmen by the end of the third century CE, to be replaced by mercenary frontier guardsmen and, in time of war, mass levies of urban laborers and rural peasants that fought as spear-armed rabble (Middle Persian, arshtabaran).