Western Mediterranean Military Koine ?

[Andreas Johansson]

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

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.

[Keraunos]

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

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.

[Jim Webster]

An 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 

[RichT]

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.

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.

[Duncan Head]

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.

Shannahan has not convinced me on that one, especially because he was the one who cited this rather nice Late Egyptian tower shield.

[Jim Webster]

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.

Shannahan has not convinced me on that one, especially because he was the one who cited this rather nice Late Egyptian tower shield.

Fascinating and bow armed as well!
So if I understand the dating, late period, 1000BC to Persian Control?

[Erpingham]

An 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.

[Duncan Head]

Fascinating 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".

[Adrian Nayler]

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".

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.

[Jim Webster]

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".

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. You cannot view this attachment.

I included this particular photo because it does show the pose looks perfect for a spear held ready to thrust.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

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.

[Duncan Head]

I 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 suggest (p.21) that the Assyrians got tower-shields from Egypt:

"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."

[Duncan Head]

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.

I get the impression not much, at least in so far as his appearance is concerned:

Christiane 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)

[RichT]

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.

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).

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

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.

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).

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.