I don't think we've had this thesis (https://www.academia.edu/26292605/Ante_bella_punica_Western_Mediterranean_Military_Development_350_264_BC?) before
"The contemporaneous development and transmission of similar military equipment across the western Mediterranean between the fifth and third centuries strongly suggests that a common military koine was in existence. "
Is this another way of saying Western Mediterranean Way of War? I haven't read it but the expansion of the Roman Republic is such an evergreen with members, some may be interested.
run for cover....! ;D
Quote from: Erpingham on Dec 06, 2020, 03:10 PM
Is this another way of saying Western Mediterranean Way of War?
He's clearly positing
a Western Mediterranean Way or War - I'm not sure if it's quite the same as the one we know and love. Or that some of us do - that debate largely preceded my engagement with the Society.
Anyway, skimming the introduction, this
koine centres on men armed with both javelins and close combat weapons (thrusting spears and swords), big oblong shields and relatively light body armour, who are capable of both skirmishing and close combat.
I'm not sure to what extent this
koine is supposed to to survive through the Punic Wars era. Certainly, some of the peoples involved eventually jettison parts of the equipment he describes as typical of it, adopting stuff like mail and long slashing swords.
Quote from: Erpingham on Dec 06, 2020, 03:10 PM
I don't think we've had this thesis (https://www.academia.edu/26292605/Ante_bella_punica_Western_Mediterranean_Military_Development_350_264_BC?) before
We have - The return of the Western Mediterranean Way of War (http://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=2653). The title of the thesis crops up in a few other threads as well.
I apologise for inflicting the pain all over again.
it is in all seriousness a useful debate but maybe done to death. Still always good to view stuff from time to time
To be fair to the author... he is not positing a western way of war in order to make a contrast with some other (eastern?) way of war.
Apologies to the author, but paraphrasing... his argument is that the surprising similarity of equipment suggests a similar way of waging war.
I am not sure how surprising similar equipment is to begin with. I can imagine many reasons for transmission and convergence.
And he doesn't really engage with the next question which is pretty obvious - if everyone had the same equipment, and used it the same way, why was military success so unevenly distributed?
QuoteTo be fair to the author... he is not positing a western way of war in order to make a contrast with some other (eastern?) way of war.
And, we should recall, Western Mediterranean Way of War was a humourous play on the deadly serious Western Way of War. Paul McDonnell-Staff was not suggesting any deep political meaning, just that everyone in the Western Mediterranean seemed to end up using a similar weapons set (Two throwing/thrusting spears, a long shield and a sword), whereas in the Eastern Mediterranean they stuck with a different set of weapons (A thrusting spear, a big round shield and a sword). The big controversy came when discussing how this common panoply was used and, indeed, whether everyone used it the same.
Quote from: Dangun on Dec 12, 2020, 02:16 PMif everyone had the same equipment, and used it the same way, why was military success so unevenly distributed?
Maybe equipment isn't the major factor in military success?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Jul 30, 2025, 03:28 PMQuote from: Dangun on Dec 12, 2020, 02:16 PMif everyone had the same equipment, and used it the same way, why was military success so unevenly distributed?
Maybe equipment isn't the major factor in military success?
I don't think Dangun - who hasn't logged onto the forum for over a year and presumably won't reply here - was meaning to imply that it was: note that he said
and used it in the same way. I'm not sure how wide a sense of "use" he intended, but given that Lumsden posits a a common style of warfare over the whole area, probably a rather wide one. If the Roman military system in the 4th and early 3rd centuries was essentially the same as their rivals, why did it prove much more successful? I think that's a reasonable enough question that Lumsden ought address.
I don't get the impression that the early Republican armies were massively superior to their enemies - even in Livy there seem to be as many defeats as victories. What seems to have made the difference is Rome's ability to strategically exploit victories while shrugging off the effect of defeats.
So I can imagine the conquests happening even if there was no great difference in the way their armies fought. Though, of course, that's no proof that such a difference didn't exist.
I'm not sure I understand the idea here. As I see it one lot see another lot using something to advantage and think 'we can do that' and copy them.
To expand this period was not feudal so people were able to move around a bit and see the world. Perhaps see some soldiers in a rich city sporting the latest fashion in weapons and armour and think this must be good stuff and look to copy design when they get home.
Stretching the point a little and by analogy
How often do we see people wear team kit to emulate their heroes (football, cricket, cycling, tiddlywinks etc)? Also using the most up to date equipment and kit extends this analogy. Just because someone buys a £12k bike, doesn't mean he is Tadej Pogacar
The desire to feel included and part of the gang runs deep in human consciousness. A more relevant theme might be reflected in the observation that military belts became fashionable in Britain by lots of the male population in the late roman period
Obviously we are looking at specific weaponry and their trends and so there is probably another edge to it than just wanting to ape the opposition so to speak. However, if someone sees new technology and sees it used well they may want to obtain that to at least give themselves a fighting chance even if the training and tactical nous lags behind
I confess that I wonder, not about the Western Mediterranean Military Koine but the Eastern ;)
Were the Aetolians Western or Eastern? And what about the Thracians and those in Asia minor like the Phrygians and Lydians etc.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Jul 31, 2025, 05:50 AMI confess that I wonder, not about the Western Mediterranean Military Koine but the Eastern ;)
Were the Aetolians Western or Eastern? And what about the Thracians and those in Asia minor like the Phrygians and Lydians etc.
You have posed the same question I raised on another thread this morning, only you have done so more succinctly.
Quote from: Keraunos on Jul 31, 2025, 08:11 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on Jul 31, 2025, 05:50 AMI confess that I wonder, not about the Western Mediterranean Military Koine but the Eastern ;)
Were the Aetolians Western or Eastern? And what about the Thracians and those in Asia minor like the Phrygians and Lydians etc.
You have posed the same question I raised on another thread this morning, only you have done so more succinctly.
The same question was posed in the original WMWW debate. The borders of the whole scheme were rather arbitrary - I remember pressing Paul on this, as I thought it was quite important in determining the "unique" nature of WMWW. Exactly which Celts it applied to was also confusing.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Jul 31, 2025, 05:50 AMI confess that I wonder, not about the Western Mediterranean Military Koine but the Eastern ;)
Were the Aetolians Western or Eastern? And what about the Thracians and those in Asia minor like the Phrygians and Lydians etc.
If there is an EMWW, and if it's built around hoplites, then you'd have to accept that the EM is studded with mountain-dwelling groups, from the Aitolians to the Pisidians, who have neither the terrain for phalanx tactics nor the wealth for the panoply. Either your EMWW includes both lowland hoplite powers and tribal hill-bandits, or it is a more limited concept.
(Thracians I barely regard as a Mediterranean people anyway, they're inland Europeans whose southern periphery reaches the Aegean.)
Quote from: Duncan Head on Jul 31, 2025, 10:31 AMIf there is an EMWW, and if it's built around hoplites, then you'd have to accept that the EM is studded with mountain-dwelling groups, from the Aitolians to the Pisidians, who have neither the terrain for phalanx tactics nor the wealth for the panoply. Either your EMWW includes both lowland hoplite powers and tribal hill-bandits, or it is a more limited concept.
I doubt anyone would support the idea of some sort of strict border where you had to hand in your panoply if you wanted to cross.
I guess the thing that interests me is whether there were broad categories of fighting style that most, but not all, armies could be fitted into? And in that case, what broad category do early Republican armies fall into. Do we have archeological evidence for them using the panoply?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Jul 31, 2025, 10:49 AMI doubt anyone would support the idea of some sort of strict border where you had to hand in your panoply if you wanted to cross.
Some of the critics of the original WMWW seemed to do just that.
Quote from: Duncan Head on Jul 31, 2025, 10:31 AMIf there is an EMWW, and if it's built around hoplites, then you'd have to accept that the EM is studded with mountain-dwelling groups, from the Aitolians to the Pisidians, who have neither the terrain for phalanx tactics nor the wealth for the panoply. Either your EMWW includes both lowland hoplite powers and tribal hill-bandits, or it is a more limited concept.
Even on what passes for plains in Greece, you get
thureophoroi from the 3rd century, who look suspiciously "western" with oblong shields and (in at least some cases) javelins.
But if there's a hoplite-centric way of war, it's surely more Aegean than Eastern Mediterranean, as it never seems to take proper hold in Egypt or the Levant. It's not until the Hellenistic age with its pike phalanges that there's something like a common military style around the eastern Med, methinks.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Jul 31, 2025, 11:04 AMBut if there's a hoplite-centric way of war, it's surely more Aegean than Eastern Mediterranean, as it never seems to take proper hold in Egypt or the Levant. It's not until the Hellenistic age with its pike phalanges that there's something like a common military style around the eastern Med, methinks.
Although Xenophon at least seems to think Egyptians are hoplites in an EMWW sense. Though this may just prove ancients found it just as hard to classify and categorise as we do.
Quote from: Keraunos on Jul 31, 2025, 08:11 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on Jul 31, 2025, 05:50 AMI confess that I wonder, not about the Western Mediterranean Military Koine but the Eastern ;)
Were the Aetolians Western or Eastern? And what about the Thracians and those in Asia minor like the Phrygians and Lydians etc.
You have posed the same question I raised on another thread this morning, only you have done so more succinctly.
Yes I think we have both come to the same question, separately and at the same time 8)
I am beginning to suspect that EMWW is more Aegean. I agree about the Thracians, but we have the Carians who might even have been some of the early adopters/inventors.
Why are you all persisting in dignifying this nonsense theory by quibbling around its fringes.
The whole thing is horse shit, let it die
Quote from: Jim Webster on Jul 31, 2025, 07:42 PMI am beginning to suspect that EMWW is more Aegean. I agree about the Thracians, but we have the Carians who might even have been some of the early adopters/inventors.
Aegean-Anatolian, maybe. Compare our Editor's suggestion in his
Greek Hoplite Phalanx book that the Greek hoplites weren't all that different from other heavy infantry. The point here, I think, is that there's little or nothing really unique about the Greeks. But any "wider hoplite environment" may not extend far enough to constitute an EMWW, which was only ever an afterthought, really, as the opposite of the WMWW hypothesis.
Quote from: Duncan Head on Jul 31, 2025, 10:31 AM(Thracians I barely regard as a Mediterranean people anyway, they're inland Europeans whose southern periphery reaches the Aegean.)
An Inland European Way of War?
::)
Quote from: Duncan Head on Jul 31, 2025, 08:27 PMQuote from: Jim Webster on Jul 31, 2025, 07:42 PMI am beginning to suspect that EMWW is more Aegean. I agree about the Thracians, but we have the Carians who might even have been some of the early adopters/inventors.
Aegean-Anatolian, maybe. Compare our Editor's suggestion in his Greek Hoplite Phalanx book that the Greek hoplites weren't all that different from other heavy infantry. The point here, I think, is that there's little or nothing really unique about the Greeks. But any "wider hoplite environment" may not extend far enough to constitute an EMWW, which was only ever an afterthought, really, as the opposite of the WMWW hypothesis.
I confess it always struck me as strange, defining something against WMWW which a lot of people claimed was wrong ???
But with regard to Egyptians, at his version of the Battle of Thymbra
"The Egyptians, however, had the advantage both in numbers and in weapons; for the spears that they use even unto this day are long and powerful, and their shields cover their bodies much more effectually than corselets and targets, and as they rest against the shoulder they are a help in shoving. So, locking their shields together, they advanced....."
Obviously did Egyptians really do this, or is it Xenophon making them into Hoplites?
Alternatively when did they do this, because he might have got news of Egyptian infantry much later in life with men he knew who went with Agesilaus to Egypt
Quote from: nikgaukroger on Aug 01, 2025, 07:44 AMAn Inland European Way of War?
Where warriors either fought with long shields and throwing spears like WMWW or spears and round shields like EMWW or a mixture of both? :)
Quote from: nikgaukroger on Aug 01, 2025, 07:44 AMQuote from: Duncan Head on Jul 31, 2025, 10:31 AM(Thracians I barely regard as a Mediterranean people anyway, they're inland Europeans whose southern periphery reaches the Aegean.)
An Inland European Way of War?
The acronym seems to sum that idea up, IEWW!
Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 01, 2025, 09:11 AMBut with regard to Egyptians, at his version of the Battle of Thymbra
"The Egyptians, however, had the advantage both in numbers and in weapons; for the spears that they use even unto this day are long and powerful, and their shields cover their bodies much more effectually than corselets and targets, and as they rest against the shoulder they are a help in shoving. So, locking their shields together, they advanced....."
Obviously did Egyptians really do this, or is it Xenophon making them into Hoplites?
Alternatively when did they do this, because he might have got news of Egyptian infantry much later in life with men he knew who went with Agesilaus to Egypt
At Cunaxa, the Egyptians are the only contingent on Artaxerxes' side Xenophon describes as "hoplites", though their shields are apparently tower shields, not round things like the classical hoplite's
aspis.
You may recall, though, that Shannahan thinks he was mistaken about these men being Egyptians, partly because of the oddity of Egyptians fighting on Artaxerxes' side at this point, partly because 5th century Egyptians don't otherwise seem to have used tower shields.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Aug 01, 2025, 10:33 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on Aug 01, 2025, 09:11 AMBut with regard to Egyptians, at his version of the Battle of Thymbra
"The Egyptians, however, had the advantage both in numbers and in weapons; for the spears that they use even unto this day are long and powerful, and their shields cover their bodies much more effectually than corselets and targets, and as they rest against the shoulder they are a help in shoving. So, locking their shields together, they advanced....."
Obviously did Egyptians really do this, or is it Xenophon making them into Hoplites?
Alternatively when did they do this, because he might have got news of Egyptian infantry much later in life with men he knew who went with Agesilaus to Egypt
At Cunaxa, the Egyptians are the only contingent on Artaxerxes' side Xenophon describes as "hoplites", though their shields are apparently tower shields, not round things like the classical hoplite's aspis.
You may recall, though, that Shannahan thinks he was mistaken about these men being Egyptians, partly because of the oddity of Egyptians fighting on Artaxerxes' side at this point, partly because 5th century Egyptians don't otherwise seem to have used tower shields.
I have put my money on these chaps being Assyrian/Babylonian types and have painted up some of Newline's figures with tower shields to represent them. Shields will be detachable so they can run away faster.
Quote from: Erpingham on Aug 01, 2025, 09:50 AMQuote from: nikgaukroger on Aug 01, 2025, 07:44 AMAn Inland European Way of War?
Where warriors either fought with long shields and throwing spears like WMWW or spears and round shields like EMWW or a mixture of both? :)
So Spanish are WMWW or EMWW depending ;)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Aug 01, 2025, 10:33 AMAt Cunaxa, the Egyptians are the only contingent on Artaxerxes' side Xenophon describes as "hoplites", though their shields are apparently tower shields, not round things like the classical hoplite's aspis.
It's worth bearing in mind that when Xenophon (or anyone in antiquity) says 'hoplite' he doesn't mean a specific troop type or set of equipment or tactical whathaveyou or fighting style - he just means 'heavy infantry', as opposed to 'naked' skirmishers or small-shield-carrying skirmishers or men sat on horses. The idea that a hoplite is something very specific and different (round-shield-carrying, bronze-armoured, fights-without-weapons (!)) is entirely a modern one.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Aug 01, 2025, 10:33 AMYou may recall, though, that Shannahan thinks he was mistaken about these men being Egyptians, partly because of the oddity of Egyptians fighting on Artaxerxes' side at this point, partly because 5th century Egyptians don't otherwise seem to have used tower shields.
Shannahan has not convinced me on that one, especially because he was the one who cited this rather nice Late Egyptian tower shield (https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010011766).
Quote from: Duncan Head on Aug 01, 2025, 04:57 PMQuote from: Andreas Johansson on Aug 01, 2025, 10:33 AMYou may recall, though, that Shannahan thinks he was mistaken about these men being Egyptians, partly because of the oddity of Egyptians fighting on Artaxerxes' side at this point, partly because 5th century Egyptians don't otherwise seem to have used tower shields.
Shannahan has not convinced me on that one, especially because he was the one who cited this rather nice Late Egyptian tower shield (https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010011766).
Fascinating and bow armed as well!
So if I understand the dating, late period, 1000BC to Persian Control?
Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 01, 2025, 12:04 PMQuote from: Erpingham on Aug 01, 2025, 09:50 AMQuote from: nikgaukroger on Aug 01, 2025, 07:44 AMAn Inland European Way of War?
Where warriors either fought with long shields and throwing spears like WMWW or spears and round shields like EMWW or a mixture of both? :)
So Spanish are WMWW or EMWW depending ;)
Joking aside, the Spanish issue is an example of what goes wrong, I think. Provided you stick to "a lot of societies in the Western Med seem to have a similar fighting style - how did that come about?" you have a conversation topic. If you insist that it is all part of some meta- Way of War which is unique to the geography, you have to do a lot more heavy lifting with the evidence before it collapses in a heap of anomalies.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 01, 2025, 05:04 PMFascinating and bow armed as well!
So if I understand the dating, late period, 1000BC to Persian Control?
The dates cited are 664 to 332, so Saitic to Persian.
Shannahan suggests that the figurine is irrelevant because he's an archer, but to me it still undermines his argument that "Late period Egyptian don't use tower-shields".
Quote from: Duncan Head on Aug 01, 2025, 05:13 PMShannahan suggests that the figurine is irrelevant because he's an archer, but to me it still undermines his argument that "Late period Egyptian don't use tower-shields".
The figurine is identified as Reshep, a god of war and plague common in Second Millenium BCE Egypt, Ugarit and Phoenicia though apparently less common during the First. His multiple armament would seem quite appropriate. He obviously has big hands to simultaneously grip bow, arrows and shield in his left, and perhaps his right once held a spear ready to strike (given the locating hole for the now lost hand and weapon)? I can't see any reason why the Egyptians would not be influenced by large 'body' shields given their experiences with Assyrians and Achaemenids.
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on Aug 01, 2025, 07:07 PMQuote from: Duncan Head on Aug 01, 2025, 05:13 PMShannahan suggests that the figurine is irrelevant because he's an archer, but to me it still undermines his argument that "Late period Egyptian don't use tower-shields".
The figurine is indentified as Reshep, a god of war and plague common in Second Millenium BCE Egypt, Ugarit and Phoenicia though apparently less common during the First. His multiple armament would seem quite appropriate. He obviously has big hands to simultaneously grip bow, arrows and shield in his left, and perhaps his right once held a spear ready to strike (given the locating hole for the now lost hand and weapon)? I can't see any reason why the Egyptians would not be influenced by large 'body' shields given their experiences with Assyrians and Achaemenids.
Given the nature of the figure, there is an element of symbolism. But I would suggest that if a tower shield is given to such a figure, then it is likely to mean that the tower shield was seen by the maker as 'quintessentially' Egyptian. C.JPG
I included this particular photo because it does show the pose looks perfect for a spear held ready to thrust.
Quote from: RichT on Aug 01, 2025, 04:43 PMIt's worth bearing in mind that when Xenophon (or anyone in antiquity) says 'hoplite' he doesn't mean a specific troop type or set of equipment or tactical whathaveyou or fighting style - he just means 'heavy infantry', as opposed to 'naked' skirmishers or small-shield-carrying skirmishers or men sat on horses. The idea that a hoplite is something very specific and different (round-shield-carrying, bronze-armoured, fights-without-weapons (!)) is entirely a modern one.
Yes -
hoplitai gets applied to all sort of troops we wouldn't call "hoplites" today. But Xenophon
doesn't apply it to the rest of Artaxerxes' infantry, so he's aligning the Egyptians, if Egyptians they were, with the hoplites
sensu hodierno and against the rest of the royalist foot.
Re Reshep, he was originally an Asiatic god, so that he'd use "quintessentially Egyptian" equipment may not be a safe assumption. I don't pretend to know if his foreign origin was at all remembered by the Saite period, mind.
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on Aug 01, 2025, 07:07 PMI can't see any reason why the Egyptians would not be influenced by large 'body' shields given their experiences with Assyrians and Achaemenids.
Or vice versa; Nigel Tallis
et al (https://www.britishmuseum.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/FINAL_Esarhaddon_low%20res.pdf) suggest (p.21) that the Assyrians got tower-shields from Egypt:
Quote"The exact shape of the shield is significant as this type of long body-shield or tower-shield possibly shown here does not appear in Assyrian reliefs before the reign of Ashurbanipal, and so this representation is therefore the earliest known. Given the similar traditional form of Egyptian shields, it is possible that this new type of shield was adopted by the Assyrian army following Esarhaddon's first attempt to conquer Egypt in 674/673 BC."
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Aug 01, 2025, 08:46 PMRe Reshep, he was originally an Asiatic god, so that he'd use "quintessentially Egyptian" equipment may not be a safe assumption. I don't pretend to know if his foreign origin was at all remembered by the Saite period, mind.
I get the impression not much, at least in so far as his appearance is concerned:
QuoteChristiane Zivie-Coche notes that as in the case of other foreign deities incorporated into the Egyptian pantheon, Resheph's Egyptian iconography was primarily meant to illustrate his functions, rather than his place of origin.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resheph)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on Aug 01, 2025, 08:46 PMYes - hoplitai gets applied to all sort of troops we wouldn't call "hoplites" today. But Xenophon doesn't apply it to the rest of Artaxerxes' infantry, so he's aligning the Egyptians, if Egyptians they were, with the hoplites sensu hodierno and against the rest of the royalist foot.
I'm not sure about that - we can't know for certain how Xenophon sees troop classifications but it seems most unlikely he's using hoplitai
sensu hodierno in this case, rather than in a much more general sense of 'heavy infantry'. (But I don't know how strictly you intend
sensu hodierno).
"There were horsemen in white cuirasses on the left wing of the enemy, under the command, it was reported, of Tissaphernes; next to them were gerrophoroi and, farther on, hoplites with wooden shields which reached to their feet, these latter being Egyptians, people said; and then more horsemen and more bowmen." Xen. Anab 1.8.9
Now it may be that Xenophon has fairly strict type definitions in mind between gerrophoroi and hoplites and bowmen, or it may be that he is using available descriptors in a fairly loose way, with an eye on variety and style. Are gerrophoroi heavy infantry (in the modern sense?). Are they hoplites? I think moderns might struggle to say whether, say, sparabara are 'heavy', or kardakes (called both peltasts and hoplites by ancients). Or looked at another way, what was hoplitey in Xen's mind about the Egyptians? Close order, big shields? Should we understand that the rest of Artaxerxes infantry were in a looser order, or that gerrai were smaller (or is the lightness alone enough to make a distinction?).
I can't remember what the point of all this was now, other than to observe how tricky it is to classify things like this (for all that as wargamers, we want to).
Quote from: RichT on Aug 02, 2025, 10:13 AMQuote from: Andreas Johansson on Aug 01, 2025, 08:46 PMYes - hoplitai gets applied to all sort of troops we wouldn't call "hoplites" today. But Xenophon doesn't apply it to the rest of Artaxerxes' infantry, so he's aligning the Egyptians, if Egyptians they were, with the hoplites sensu hodierno and against the rest of the royalist foot.
I'm not sure about that - we can't know for certain how Xenophon sees troop classifications but it seems most unlikely he's using hoplitai sensu hodierno in this case, rather than in a much more general sense of 'heavy infantry'. (But I don't know how strictly you intend sensu hodierno).
But I'm not saying he used the word in the modern sense, I'm saying that he used it both of these "Egyptians" and of the troops we'd call hoplites, i.e. the heavy infantry component of the Greek mercenaries on Cyrus' side. Apparently he thought the "Egyptians" in some relevant aspect were like the Greek hoplites, and unlike the rest of Artaxerxes' infantry.
QuoteI can't remember what the point of all this was now, other than to observe how tricky it is to classify things like this (for all that as wargamers, we want to).
This particular subthread started with you saying that "Although Xenophon at least seems to think Egyptians are hoplites in an EMWW sense." His account of Cunaxa would support this in that it puts Greeks and (what he at least thought was) Egyptians in one box and the Asiatic foot apparently outside it.