The Bithynian Army in the Hellenistic Period

The Bithynian Army in the Hellenistic Period The main basis for this article is the body of funerary stelai from within Bithynia and its periphery. Almost all of these stelai date to the second century BC, with the remaining few dating to the first century BC. Despite the lack of variety in sources, a plethora of information can be gleaned from these stelai, allowing us to illuminate a relatively obscure army from the late Hellenistic period, providing details of the equipment and social conditions of the cavalry, infantry, and even the naval force of the Bithynians. Bithynia Xenophon, in his Anabasis, provides us with one of the first detailed accounts of Bithynia:1 The place which goes by the name of Calpe Haven is in Asiatic Thrace, the name given to a region extending from the mouth of the Euxine all the way to Heraclea, which lies on the right hand as you sail into the Euxine. It is a long day's voyage for a war-ship, using her three banks of oars, from Byzantium to Heraclea, and between these two there is not a single Hellenic or friendly city, but only these Bithynian Thracians, who have a bad reputation for the savagery with which they treat any Greeks cast ashore by shipwreck or otherwise thrown into their power. The natives of Bithynia, at least as far back as Herodotus, were known to be Thracians who had migrated across the Bosporus from Europe.2 When this migration took place is unknown. The land is often called “Asian Thrace” and the people the “Thracians of Asia.”3 In Xenophon’s day, the Bithynians were considered a backward and thoroughly uncivilized people only really notable for their malignancy towards those who became stranded in their territory. By the fall of Lysimachus in 281 BC, the kingdom of Bithynia had become an independent political force in western Asia Minor, though not a particularly large or powerful one in the scope of the Hellenistic world. It extended from the western shores of the Sea of Marmara to, at its farthest eastern reaches, the major Greek city of Heraclea Pontica (a city which it never controlled). Its main territory lay around the river Sangarius, its fertile valley, and the hilly lands beside it. The country of Bithynia provided amply for its inhabitants, with vast forests, quarries, grain fields, and pastures.4 Before the invasion of Alexander, this region of Asia Minor had been associated with the satrapy of Dascyleum in the Persian kingdom.5 From the end of the fourth century, Bithynia grew from a small, isolated kingdom into prominent minor kingdom. In 297 BC, when Zipoites became the first Bithynian ruler to assume the title of king, Bithynia was still removed from major access to the sea and, thus, major Pontic or Aegean trade. He laid the foundation for the future Bithynian state when he first put into motion a process of modernization that included establishing Greek cities. It was Nicomedes I, though, who first began in earnest what could be deemed a program of hellenization in Bithynia. Ascending to the throne in 280, he moved the capital to the coast in 264. This new capital, 1

Xenophon, Anabasis, 6.4.1-2. Herodotos, 7.75. 3 Herodotos, 7.75; Thoukudides, 4.75.2; Xenophon, Hellenika, 1.3.2, 3.2.2, Anabasis 6.4.1-2. 4 Xenophon, Anabasis, 6.4.3-5. M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1941), 566. 5 Xenophon, Anabasis, 5.6.24, 7.8.24. 2

Nicomedea, was a major urban centre, inhabited by Greeks, and cleverly established to fill the void left in the eastern Sea of Marmara by the destruction of Astacus earlier in the third century.6 Nicomedes also began to donate to the cities of Greece in an effort to secure his image as an important Hellenistic king. His son Ziaelas continued this program after becoming king,7 as did the next king Prusias I, founding several poleis named after the Bithynian royal family in the Macedonian fashion (a habit initiated by Zipoites and his founding of Zipoitum).8 The Bithynian military has been dealt with fleetingly in the past. Griffith covered it in The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World and wrote:9 ...[I]t would be surprising if we were to find that [Bithynia] developed anything in the nature of an Hellenistic military system such as has been described in connection with the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, or even that of Pergamum: and no trace in fact of any such development exists.... [T]here is nothing to make one think that they kept standing armies of mercenaries, much less were able to command a supply of Greeks from military settlements like those of the Seleucids, and in the absence of further evidence it seems more probable that their standing armies must have consisted of soldiers drawn from their own subjects, after the old Persian system. Rostovtzeff echoed this in his coverage, in the absolute briefest sense, of the Bithynian army in Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World:10 [We do not have] any idea to what extent the Bithynians adopted the Hellenistic military policy of their neighbours, the system of mercenary soldiers and military katoikoi. Their armies appear to have been recruited from their own subjects, reinforced by Galatian mercenaries. A consideration of more recent evidence, namely a number of stelai and some other useful sources, provides us with a more comprehensive image of this minor Hellenistic kingdom’s military. These stelai give us a good idea of the weaponry and equipment of the soldiers fighting in the Bithynian army during the second century against Pergamum, Pontus, and Cappadocia. The Stelai Stele A.11 Grave stele of Mokazis, found near Adapazari, 1st half of 2nd century BC. Stele B.12 From the Bithynian Black Sea coast, 2nd century BC. 6

Rostovtzeff, 568. Rostovtzeff, 569. 8 Rostovtzeff, 570. 9 G.T. Griffith, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (London: Cambridge University Press, 1935), 183. 10 Rostovtzeff, 570-571. 11 Held Winifried and Frank Rumscheid, “Erinnerungen an Mokazis,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 44 (1994): 89-106. 7

12

Urs Peschlow, Anneliese Peschlow-Bindokat and Michael Wörrle, “Die Sammlung Turan Beler in Kimbaba bei Sile (II) Antike und byzantinische Denkmäler von der bithynischen

Stele C.13 Grave stele of Diliporis, found in Kutluca, 1st half of 2nd century BC . Stele D.14 Grave stele of Pasias, from the Bithynian Black Sea coast, 2nd century BC. Stele E.15 Found in Izmit (Nikomedeia), 1st century BC. Stele F.16 Grave stele of Phila, found in Deydinler, around 150 BC. Stele G.17 Found in Daskuleion, 2nd century BC. Stele H.18 Found in Miletupolis, 2nd century BC. Stele I.19 From the Bithynian Black Sea coast, 2nd century BC. Stele J.20 Grave stele of Menas, found in Cihankoy, Early 2nd century BC. Stele K.21 Grave stele of Nikasion, found in Gemlik (Kios), 1st half of the 2nd century BC. Stele L.22 Grave stele of Dionusios, found in Alexandria, 2nd century BC. Stele M.23 Grave stele of Phokritos, found in Yalova, 2nd century BC. Stele N.24 Grave stele of Zadalas, from the Bithynian Black Sea coast, 2nd century BC. Stele O.25 Grave stele from Bursa (Prousa), 2nd century BC. Stele P.26 Fragmentary relief, found in Adapazari, between the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD.

Schwarzmeerküste,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52 (2002): 433, Nr. 103, Abb. 1d. 13 Marielouise Cremer, Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien 2. Bithynien (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 1992), 123, NS 1. 14 Peschlow, Peschlow-Bindokat, and Wörrle, 433-36, Nr. 104, Abb. 2a-c. 15 Cremer, 126-127, NS 13. 16 Cremer, 126, NS 12. 17 Pfuhl and Möbius, Nr. 1429. 18 Pfuhl and Möbius, Nr. 1399. 19 Peschlow, Peschlow-Bindokat, and Wörrle, 430-32, Nr. 102, Abb. 1a-c. 20 Petros Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme (Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, 1986), 284, Taf. 60, Nr. 1. 21 Cremer, 27, Abb. 2. Pfuhl and Möbius, 310, Abb. 79 and 533, Abb. 115. 22 Blanche Brown, Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics in the Alexandrian Style (Cambridge: Archaeological Institute of America, 1957), 28, Nr. 27, Pl. XX, I. 23 Cremer, Abb. 5. 24 Peschlow, Peschlow-Bindokat, and Wörrle, 436, Nr. 105, Abb. 2d. 25 Pfuhl and Möbius, Nr. 509. 26 Archaeological Museum Instanbul, Inv. Nr. 5889 T; Mendel Catalogue, Nr. 1072.

The Nature of the Stelai These stelai are a part of a large body of Hellenistic-era gravestones found in the western half of Asia Minor,27 the majority of which date to the second century BC. While many of these stelai show consistent motifs, such as the meal scene, the hunt vignette, the battle scene, and the “coronation” scene in which the deceased, reclining and already crowned with a wreath, holds one above his wife’s head, there is little evidence of slavish replication of the details of these motifs. Of course this matter would be of the utmost concern when evaluating the detail of the arms, armour, and equipment of these men if in fact these were merely “stock” designs (inasmuch as a design could be stock when produced by hand). However, the individual natures of each of the fifteen stelai to be considered in this article stand up well to scrutiny. For the purposes of this work I will evaluate only the relevant scenes of military subjects and their similarities and differences. Stele A and Stele B both feature very similar scenes, with a central rider on a rearing horse, his cloak flying back dramatically, striking at an enemy to the right; they also both feature battle scenes with infantrymen fighting beside the central figure of the deceased. However, while the central figures look very similar, the victorious infantrymen beside them as well as their enemies are entirely different in armament, pose, and treatment. Stelai D, E, F, and H all feature cavalrymen on rearing horses, facing toward the right and striking at an opponent. Stele H features the deceased in a hunting scene and so only armed with a spear, while Stele F shows a light cavalryman. Stelai D and E both feature heavy cavalrymen, but the former wears a long sword on his right hip and his cloak is dramatically flowing, while the latter’s cloak is flaccid and he wears no visible sword; the opposing soldiers on D, E, and F are also differently equipped and posed. The scenes of the deceased standing with his groom and his horse behind or beside him on Stelai G, H, I, and O have almost no features in common beyond the simple similarities of the motif. The remaining stelai are so varied in composition and style that their being duplicates can effectively be ruled out, at least in the context of the current evidence. The Early Hellenistic Bithynian Army It is unfortunate that the evidence for the Bithynian military dates almost entirely from the second century BC and later. The late fourth and third centuries BC were times of significant change in the armies of Asia Minor. The invasion of Alexander set about a drastic hellenization process which heavily influenced the militaries of all states on the periphery of the empire and which was to continue for some time into the third century. In addition to this, the introduction of the Galatians into Asia Minor had a large effect on the material culture of these armies. One of our only glimpses of the Bithynian soldier of the third century is provided by the stele of Dionusios from Alexandria in Egypt. His is a type of funerary monument which was peculiar to the Hellenistic period - stelai decorated as they had been from the Classical period with architectural fixtures around a main field, but in that field there was instead of a sculpted relief a 27

The most complete coverage of these in a publication is in Pfuhl and Möbius.

painting on the flat stone surface. These painted stelai, of which examples, all of them dating to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, have been found in Alexandria, Cyprus, Sidon, Demetrias in Macedonia, and the northern Black Sea. A large proportion of these stelai were for soldiers (the entirety of the stelai found at Sidon with surviving paint, around 17 in total, were for mercenary soldiers), and some paintings with paint still visible depicting up to three soldiers on a single stele have been found. Dionusios’ stele is one of these. Though he was a mercenary, there is little reason to believe that he would have changed his equipment or costume while serving abroad. Of the numerous other painted stelai depicting soldiers which have been found in and around the modern city of Alexandria, the mercenaries (who comprise almost all of them) are all armed in their respective national fashions.28 Dionusios wears a dark brown chiton with a single white stripe down the front of it, a pair of dark brown boots, and a laurel wreath on his head. He holds a medium length spear while his diminutive page holds two shorter javelins and his yellowbrown thureos (a large oval shield). The boy wears a short white chiton as well and an item of headgear painted in blue which most likely represents an iron helmet, seemingly of the pilos type. It is notable that Dionusios is the only soldier depicted on the Alexandria stele to carry a thureos who is not a Galatian. It seems that the Hellenistic militaries that came into contact with the Galatians only began to adopt their style of armament towards the middle of the third century BC, and so Dionusios would have to date to the latter half of that century. This also fits in well with the accepted dates of most of the Alexandrian painted stelai which places them in the second half of the third century. Therefore, it is likely that by the turn of the century, the equipment of at least the Bithynian infantry had already undergone a significant reform. It was also about the middle of the third century when the use of shields became popular again with cavalry in the eastern Mediterranean,29 and so it was most likely around the end of that century that carrying shields also became fashionable among the Bithynian heavy cavalry. The Bithynian Cavalry Interestingly, the stelai featuring Thracian names are clustered throughout the countryside. Not a single Thracian name can be found in epigraphical evidence from within the poleis of Bithynia until the first century AD. The Thracian names that appear on numerous monuments dated to the Hellenistic period from the rural “heartland” of Bithynia around Nicaea and Prusa are all rural in provenance.30

28

For the Galatians, see Brown Nrs. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 23. For the Greeks, see Brown Nrs. 4 and 20; the armament and shield emblems of Nrs. 10 and 11 are so similar to Nr. 20 that they are most likely also Greek mercenaries. Contrary to Marcel Launey, Recherches sur les Armées Hellenistiques (Paris: University of Paris, 1949), 530-32, the Galatians preserve their native armament and do not, in fact, wear tunics, instead preferring, as was their custom, to fight wearing only a cloak. 29 Phil Barker, “The Use of Shields by Achaemenid and Hellenistic Cavalry,” Slingshot 95 (1981): 28. 30 Corsten 2003. Thomas Corsten, “Onomastic evidence for the settlement of Thracians and Galatians in Asia Minor” (paper presented at the Second Colloquium of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Oxford, England, 2002).

There could have been various reasons for this. Xenophon reported that in his day within Bithynia there were no cities but that there were many villages inhabited by the natives.31 These men may simply be descendants of these native Bithynians who remained on their ancestral estates through a variety of political upheavals. Alternatively, Antigonus Monophthalmus, who actively moulded the urban geography of Bithynia,32 may have done the same with the chora and settled soldiers (including Thracians) in this area; Lysimachus, who controlled large portions of Bithynia and Thrace, may have acted likewise. Another possibility is that the Bithynians actively copied the style of military settlement of soldiers in katoikai as practiced by the Seleucids in and around Asia Minor.33 At any rate, our knowledge of Bithynia in the late fourth and third centuries BC is insufficient to provide any further evidence, and so this is mere speculation. Regardless of their origins, it seems, therefore, that despite the efforts of Nicomedes and his successors to hellenize Bithynia, the Bithynian aristocracy preferred to inhabit the rural towns which their ancestors had lived in for generations. It was only because of the autonomy of the Bithynian kingdom that this group of the native élite was able to own large estates – by the early Imperial period, the owners of large estates in the Bithynian countryside have Roman and Greek names, and not a single Thracian name can be found listed in positions of importance.34 The armament, equipment, and costume of these cavalrymen appear to have been thoroughly hellenized, though with some subtle Celtic influences as well. The standard equipment seems to have been a cuirass (of the cavalrymen depicted on Bithynian funerary stelai, all but one wear the common “shoulder-yoke” cuirass), a helmet, a large circular shield, one or more spears, and a sword. Almost all of the Bithynian cavalrymen are depicted wearing a style of helmet which was unique to the region around the Black Sea and Asia Minor from the late third century BC to the first century BC. This was a peculiar Hellenistic-style helmet which seems to have been a synthesis of the later Hellenistic Pilos type helmet35 with the Boeotian type.36 The wide, crimped brim of the Boeotian type, which allowed for maximum visibility while also shielding the eyes from the sun and deflecting downward blows, was combined with a unique highly arching bowl and peak of the late Pilos type. However, unlike other late Hellenistic Pilos type helmets, the bowl rises to a slender peak. This kind of helmet can be seen on Stelai A, B, and I, as well as on Stele M, that of Phokritos from Yalova, on which it is most clearly represented. Stele N shows a cavalryman in a rather dramatic scene of combat. He is riding down a dying Galatian cavalryman whose horse rears backwards over another dead or dying horse. Though it is hard to ascertain details of the Bithynian horseman who is heavily effaced, the offset rim of his hoplon can be made out behind him. One other interesting aspect of this stele is that the Galatian is pierced by two javelins, perhaps indicating that the Bithynian cavalryman in this case wielded multiple javelins and not a single spear. Unfortunately, it is often hard to judge whether a 31

Xenophon, Anabasis, 6.4.1-2. R.A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 238-239, 296-297. 33 Corsten, 2003. Griffith, 149-161. 34 Corsten, 2003. 32

35 36

vignette on a stele is self contained or not, something which can often complicate interpretations of the equipment on such battle scenes. If the scene on this stele is self contained, then the two javelins are the Bithynian rider's. However, if it is not, and the presence of another defeated cavalryman's horse could indicate so, then one or even both of the weapons piercing the vanquished could be from another warrior. Some other Bithynian and Mysian cavalrymen are depicted on funerary stelai carrying multiple javelins, but these cavalrymen appear unarmoured, and so are most likely light cavalrymen. Of the stelai depicting cavalrymen, a few show men wearing no defensive armour and carrying only a few javelins with them. The clearest example is Stele F, Phila’s stele. The only sort of extra protection that Phila appears to wear is what appears to be some sort of jerkin or overtunic which the artisan has taken care to show as being much more rippled than his undertunic which extends down to his mid-thigh. Identically-equipped cavalrymen can be found on numerous Mysian stelai.37 Similar Thracian cavalrymen are depicted on some stelai decorated with scenes in relief from Byzantium dating to the second century BC as well. Those stelai, however, seem to have more in common with other Thracian stelai than Bithynian stelai in that they usually only have a single scene in the central field, rather than the multiple, often multi-layered registers seen on almost all Bithynian stelai. This could be a sign of Thracian mercenaries serving in the Bithynian army adopting local funerary customs, but it seems more likely that these are Bithynian citizens. Many of these stelai are also fairly large and well-crafted, indicating that their owners at least came from a wealthy family, if they weren’t wealthy themselves. If they indeed are native Bithynians, this is yet another sign that wealthier citizens able to afford well-crafted tombstones served in the lighter and typically poorer elements of the army. One would suppose that the Bithynian army fielded in addition to such heavy and light cavalrymen thureophoroi cavalrymen, seemingly ubiquitous in the Hellenistic world. The Bithynians were, after all surrounded by peoples who employed such cavalrymen in their armies.38 A Bithynian stele seen by the author in the lapidarium of the Bursa Archaeological Museum, unfortunately not labeled, confirms this supposition. This fragmentary stele, which does not preserve an inscription, shows an unarmoured cavalryman whose groom following behind him holds a rather small thureos. The style of the relief is certainly second or first century BC. 37

Marielouise Cremer, Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien 1. Mysien (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 1992), K 8, KS 4, KS 3, UMiS 1, UMiS 3, UMiS 6. 38 Livy 43.6.6 states that the people of Alabanda in Caria sent 300 scuta equestrian to the Romans in 170 BC; the inscription on the stele of Menas (Launey, 434) mentions that Menas killed two cavalrymen, a Mysian and a Thracian, and both of the dead soldiers at his feet carry thureoi; Bienkowski, Fig. 192 shows a terracotta figurine from Tarsus in Cilicia, second century BC, of a cavalryman carrying a thureos; Sekunda, The Seleucid Army, Fig. 22 shows a stele from Abdera, second to first century BC, of a Thracian cavalryman carrying a rectangular thureos; Kieseritzky, Fig. 688 shows the stele of Straton son of Protomachos, second century BC, a Bosporan light cavalryman with a thureos hanging above his couch, while Fig. 591 shows the stele of Charixenos son of Apphos, also a cavalrymen in the Bosporan army from the first century BC, who is depicted unarmoured while his groom holds his very large thureos and a spear.

The Stele of Diliporis The stele of Diliporis (Stele C) is quite a remarkable piece when considered both within the context of the Bithynian stelai and within the corpus of Hellenistic funerary stelai at large. The stele was made for Diliporis, who was evidently the head of a large Bithynian family. He sits with his wife Dintise and his two daughters in the upper register and on the wall behind them hang several weapons with armour. To the left the head of a horse can be seen with a groom; to the right of this is a fairly small round, rimless shield with two short spears behind it, and to the right of that is a helmet surmounted by a peak with a decorated visor, an offset rim, and cheek pieces. On the far right hangs a thureos with a trilobate sword behind it. In the register below this, the male members of the family are arrayed for the viewer. On the far right stands Numisios, who is fully armed. He carries a round, rimless shield and two short spears, most likely the same spears and shield seen hanging on the wall on the left of the upper register, and wears a helmet with a plume, similar to the one shown hanging on the right. He also wears a cuirass, the form of which cannot be determined with accuracy but which is probably a linothorax with pteruges (textile strips protecting the thighs and shoulders) and a sword on his left hip. He also wears high boots that reach up about halfway to his knees. To his left stands Mokasis, who wears the chiton and chlamus of a military man has a sword hanging on his left. Next in the lineup is Zardoiles, who carries a very large thureos and also wears a linothorax and some sort of helmet, evidently the one seen in the upper register; the hilt of a sword can be seen on his left side. The name of the next figure is no longer preserved; he wears a large ephaptis and carries what appear to be scrolls, probably marking him as a scholar or student. The final figure is a cavalryman whose name is also no longer preserved. He wears a plumed helmet that appears similar to Numisios’ (and those of many other cavalrymen on the other stelai) and he wears a cuirass with an officer’s sash. The most remarkable aspect of this stele is Numisios. His panoply is clearly represented, seemingly completely, and it is unlike that of any other soldier depicted in the art of the Hellenistic period. Asclepiodotus, in his first century BC treatise on tactics entitled Techne Taktike, divides the infantry into three divisions: phalangites (“hoplites of the phalanx”), light troops or psiloi, and an intermediate category of infantry called peltastai, or peltasts.39 This division of parts the army into threes is repeated in all other elements of the army as described by Asclepiodotus, and it seems a highly artificial division that probably has its roots in rhetorical teaching.40 He also seems to omit, ignore, or shoehorn into other divisions several distinct types of troops (such as the thureophoroi, who had been ubiquitous in the Hellenistic militaries from the middle of the third century BC, and who fit neither in the psiloi nor in the peltastai) which calls into question his actual knowledge of Hellenistic militaries.41 However, the prominence of the peltastai within his division begs the question of what exactly these troops were. It should be noted that the use of the word peltast in this context is unrelated to the “Classical” and much more common use of the term, which was to describe light troops armed with similarly-sized shields but otherwise entirely (or almost entirely) unarmed and without armour. Asclepiodotus writes that: 39

Asklepiodotos 1.2. Oldfather, Charles Henry and William Abbott Oldfather, Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), 250, Nr. 1. 41 Nick Sekunda, Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 B.C Volume 1: The Seleucid Army (Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1993), 6. 40

The corps of the peltasts stands in a sense between these two [i.e. the phalangites and the light troops], for the pelte is a kind of small, light shield, and their spears are much shorter than those of the hoplites. His description implies that they were not unlike the phalangites in other ways, and so would have worn cuirasses and greaves. Considering that he describes the shields of the phalangites, who he says are “protected by shields of the largest size,” as being eight palms (about 60 centimeters) in diameter, these peltai must have been fairly small. The description of the shorter spears simply indicates that these men were not equipped with the sarissai of the phalangites, but instead with shorter fighting spears (dorata). The family of Diliporis is clearly a family of Bithynian citizens - all of the preserved names are Thracian in origin - and very wealthy ones at that, as Diliporis’ wife and children could afford to buy an exceptionally large and well-crafted funerary stele for him. Yet we see that one son is a cavalryman, another is a thureophoros, and yet another is a peltast. The immediate conclusion to draw from this is that Bithynian citizens served not just as cavalry but also as thureophoroi and peltasts within the Bithynian army. This is borne out by the stele of Mokazis (Stele A) and another anonymous stele showing part of a battle scene (Stele B). The former shows Mokazis with two sons, a thureophoros and a spear bearer, and the latter shows the deceased’s son wearing a helmet and carrying a large round shield and a sword. The stele of Menas (Stele J) provides some more evidence in this matter. The lengthy epitaph on this gravestone reads as follows: 42 Although a long tomb contains my bones, stranger, I did not shrink back in view of the heavy weight of the enemies. Although I fought on foot, I stood my ground in front of riders among those who fought in the first line when we battled in the plain of Kouros. After I had hit a Thracian in his armour and a Mysian, I died because of my great bravery. For this, may someone praise the swift Menas, the son of Bioeris, the Bithynian, an excellent officer. One may come and pour tears on the tombs of cowards who have died an inglorious death through illness. But earth has received me, who fought near the flow of the Phrygian river for my fatherland and for my parents, as a man who died while fighting with others before the line, having first slain many enemies. For this, may someone praise the Bithynian Menas, the son of Bioeris, who exchanged light life with bravery. The battle on the plains of Corupedium in which he met his demise could not have been the famous battle of Corupedium in 281 BC, as has been supposed, because the armament of his dead opponents, shown lying at his feet, and the general character of the stele, indicates a date in the second century. Unfortunately, due to the damage done to this relief, little remains of the upper field carved in relief depicting Menas himself. A helmet lies behind him and he stands on what appears to be a thureos which cannot be attributed to either of the fallen opponents, but it seems unlikely that these are his. Nonetheless, the equipment fits in perfectly with the panoply of the Bithynian thureophoros, and the helmet is very similar to the others shown on Bithynian sources (most notably a mint issued by Prusias II showing a bust of the king wearing an almost 42

Launey, 434, footnote 3 contains the full bibliography for this stele.

identical helmet). The most important aspect of this stele is that Menas was an officer of the light infantry (the promachoi),43 yet his Bithynian family was both wealthy enough to provide him with a finely carved stele and educated enough to provide an epitaph extolling his virtue and prowess in battle in Homeric verse. One would ordinarily expect the role of lighter troops such as these to be filled by mercenaries in this period (as they were, according to most evidence, in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies44). We may presume then that some sort of system was in place for placement of soldiers within the different branches of the army. Wealth was probably one criterion for placement (as it was in almost all citizen armies in the ancient world), but there must have been others, as it seems unlikely that wealth would vary so drastically within the siblings of a single family so as to require one to join the cavalry and another the “lights.” The next most likely criterion would be age. Perhaps Bithynian “ephebes” served in the light infantry and only with age graduated to the more prestigious and heavier infantry, or from the infantry to the cavalry. Another Bithynian stele found in Dascyleum (Stele G) also shows varied arms being displayed by an aristocratic Bithynian cavalryman. Unlike the stele of Diliporis, in this case the numerous items displayed on the wall are entirely different from those that the deceased is equipped with in the register below. The man wears a linothorax and his attendant holds his large circular cavalry shield, while the register above shows a rather long and thin thureos behind which are hung two spears, two peaked helmets with wide brims, a muscled cuirass, and a sword. No inscription survives on this gravestone which could indicate if the deceased had any sons to whom these weapons could belong, but judging from the family members portrayed in the upper register, he either did not have any male offspring or they were too young to bear arms. These arms definitely seem to be Bithynian, excluding the option of their being war booty (such display of captured enemy equipment was very uncommon on Greek personal funerary monuments), but it seems very unlikely that a man, even one wealthy enough to be able to afford such a stele, would own multiple shields, helmets, cuirasses, and swords. It could be that they were heirlooms, markers of the deceased’s family’s proud history of service in the military. This would mean that at least one ancestor from this élite family had served as a thureophoros, again suggesting that wealthy citizens also served in the lighter elements of the army. Alternatively, these could be the arms of the man himself that he used when he fought as a young man as a thureophoros. A relief found in Adapazari, dating to between the first century BC and the second century AD, is also of interest.45 In this fragmentary relief, probably from a funerary stele, four men are depicted: three men represented to the same scale walk to the right, a cavalryman and two infantrymen, while a diminutive attendant follows behind. The cavalryman carries a spear and is unarmoured except perhaps for a helmet, though his head is so badly effaced that the only possible trace of this is a slight projection at the back of his head. The first infantryman carries a fairly small round shield and two spears and wears a helmet (the form of which is unclear due to effacement), while the second infantryman carries a large thureos (stretching from neck to midshin) and also wears a helmet (though, again, the exact form is not discernable). Behind the 43

Launey, 434. The most notable evidence is the corpus of painted stelai found in Sidon, dating to the second century BC, which depicts more than a dozen mercenaries of the local garrison. The majority show thureophoroi, while the rest depict light peltasts. 45 Archaeological Museum Instanbul Inv. Nr. 5889 T; Mendel Catalogue Nr. 1072. 44

thureophoros follows his attendant who carries two spears, presumably those of his master whom he follows. While the relief has been dated on stylistic grounds to between the first century BC and the second century AD, the equipment present on the relief indicates a date in the centuries BC. Here again we see cavalryman, thureophoros, and peltast depicted to the same scale as fellow citizens and clearly as equals in status. The thureophoros to the rear could also afford to own a slave attendant, suggesting that he was at least reasonably wealthy. The Stele of Nikasion The region of Bithynia has yielded several very unusual military stelai, and the gravestone of Nikasion (Stele K) is chief among them. This stele is actually a combination of two chronologically different stelai. The original stele, with the upper register decorated with a meal scene, was created for Nikasion, but was later altered to make his son more prominent. The changes were presumably made by this son, who also seems to have added the battle scene. This piece is interesting not only for its subject matter, a Hellenistic naval battle, but also for its mixture of figures and their equipment. Scenes depicting warships manned with marines and ready for battle are not uncommon in Hellenistic art,46 but scenes depicting actual naval skirmishes are very rare. Nikasion's son is presumably the disproportionately large figure on the left ship. He wears a plumed helmet and a muscled cuirass with an officer's sash and carries a sizeable thureos. One bizarre aspect of his depiction is that the only weapon he seems to carry is a stone, which he prepares to throw in his right hand. His hand may have held a separate metal spear, as was common on reliefs carved more in the round, that is now lost, but his palm appears to be either open or grasping a circular object. Another relief, from Turkey, showing a soldier on a warship carrying a hoplon (the common Greek round shield with an offset rim) also appears to show the man holding a stone. The other marine on the left ship is unarmoured, wearing only chiton and chlamus, and carrying a thureos. His right hand appears to have been broken off, but he may also have held a stone. On the other ship, a man, depicted nude and having fallen overboard, lies between the steering oars of his own vessel. Another fallen man, facing away from the viewer, lies on the deck of the ship and is being walked over by a marine bearing a hoplon. The thureos beside the ship probably belonged to one of the two fallen men; this type of thureos, with pointed top and bottom, no rim, and a thin spine that does not run the entire length of the shield, seems to have been used predominantly by Galatians.47 The fallen figure has a few distinct physical characteristic which may allow us to identify his ethnicity. He has overly long limbs, a bulging stomach, and what seems to be spiked-back hair. An Etruscan stamnos from the group of the Bonn Faliscan depicting two Celtic warriors (one of the earliest representations of Gauls in Graeco-Roman art) 46

E.g. Pfuhl and Möbius, Nrs. 1275, 1278. Nicholas Sekunda, Republican Roman Army 200104 BC (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1996), 14. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 67 (1939): Taf. 1. 47 Piotr Bienkowski, Les Celtes dans les Arts Mineurs Gréco-Romains (Cracow: Imprimerie de L'Université des Jagellons à Cracovie, 1928), 135, Fig. 196a-b. Brown, Nrs. 3, 8.

shows a close parallel.48 One of the two warriors, who is dead, lies back in a very similar pose to the warrior thrown overboard on Nikasion’s stele. His gut is also similarly bulbous and his hair similarly spiked. It seems very likely that this soldier was a Galatian in the service of the navy of one of the other kingdoms on the Black Sea.49 This is an interesting indication of the use of Galatian mercenaries in the navies around the Black Sea in the Hellenistic period. It is surprising to see the hoplon in use by the soldiers of the naval corps. Such heavy and large shields, ideal for combat in formation on land but cumbersome when used on the cramped decks of warships, were already being phased out in the context of naval warfare by Iphikrates in the early fourth century BC.50 Iphikrates, though famous for reforming the infantry of the Athenian army, seems to have tested his revolutionary changes first in the Athenian navy, of which he was appointed general in command upon his return from Egypt.51 The hoplite marines of the navy were the most active troops in the Athenian military, and so they would have been the obvious choice for testing out a new style of armament. Iphikrates unsurprisingly switched the hefty hopla for lighter “peltai summetroi”,52 probably oval shields of similar light construction to the thureos. Not operating in a phalanx, the extra width of the hoplon was no longer necessary, and the added height of the thureos provided better defense. The Battle Scene Stelai The battle scene on the middle register of Mokazis' stele (Stele A), the scene of combat on Nikasion’s stele (Stele K), and that shown on the surviving register of Stele B are extraordinary due to the number of figures involved in the melées featured on each. Three Bithynians are represented on the stele of Mokazis: a well equipped cavalryman (the deceased himself) and two infantrymen, a thureophoros and a spearman, who presumably are his sons. The two opponents of the sons are clearly represented in the nude; Mokazis’ adversary may also be nude, but that section of the relief has been badly effaced. Ordinarily, it would be assumed that these fallen soldiers were Galatians, who were always a favourite choice to play the part of the vanquished in the art of many of the Hellenistic kingdoms and who traditionally fought in the nude. And while one adversary does carry a sword and a thureos in the Celtic manner, the fact that the adversary of Mokazis’ thureophoros son is carrying a round shield seems to discredit this idea, as the Galatians (or at least their infantry) are not known to have commonly used round shields. The defeated thureophoros could either be a mercenary Galatian in the service of another state, such as the Pontic, Cappadocian, or Pergamene kings, or, in the light of the other nude non-Celtic opponent, he may be some other kind of mercenary or citizen infantryman. His companion bearing a round shield and perhaps wearing a helmet is probably a peltast. 48

J.D. Beazley, Etruscan Vase-Painting (London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1947), Pl. XXIV, Nrs. 1-2. 49 In this case, the enemy is most likely the navy of Pontus. According to Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 13, Mithridates VI possessed 300 ships before the outbreak of the Mithridatic wars and “300 ships with decks, 100 with two banks of oars each” at the onset of fighting (Mithridatic Wars 17). He also held a sizeable mercenary force drawn from “many neighbouring peoples,” undoubtedly including Galatians. Apollonius 13 (Fragmenta Historicum Graecum II, 312) also suggests the use of Galatian mercenaries by earlier Pontic rulers. 50 Luke Ueda-Sarson, “The Evolution of Hellenistic Infantry, part 1: The Reforms of Iphikrates,” Slingshot 222 (2002): 31-32. 51 Xenophon, Hellenika, 6.2.14. 52 Diodoros, 15.44.

Mokazis himself is an excellent example of the cavalry élite of Asia Minor. He wears a short chiton and chlamus as well as a cuirass, probably a linothorax. Between the mane of his horse and the head of Mokazis himself can be seen a curved line which seems to be the edge of a shield. Finally, he wields a spear overhand. Of his two sons, the thureophoros is the most interesting; unfortunately, the other son, who wears only a chiton and wields only a spear, is an anomaly. It seems highly unlikely that a soldier would fight in battle with only a single spear, though this may indicate that this man was some sort of light infantryman. His brother, however, is a fine example of the common infantryman which could be found serving in the armies around Asia Minor and the Black Sea in the later third and second century BC. He wields only sword and thureos, but based on analogous evidence we may assume that his regular panoply also included spear.53 Stele B provides an incredibly crisply preserved example of this kind of battle scene which is unfortunately missing its right half. Just as in Mokazis’ stele, we see a Bithynian cavalryman rearing back to strike at an enemy who disappeared along with the rest of the scene. The details on this relief are for the most part superb: even the torc worn around the fallen Galatian’s neck and the tiny weights at the corners of the rider’s cloak can be made out. The deceased wears equipment almost identical to Mokazis, though no trace of a shield can be seen behind him. His companion in arms, a footman, is truly unique: he is the only infantryman on any of the reliefs covered in this paper to wear a peaked helmet with a wide brim (identical to the rider’s), but he also carries a large, round, plain, and rimless shield with a sword. This kind of shield can be seen on another Bithynian stele, Stele H, but there it is carried by a cavalryman. It cannot be discerned if he wears any body armour. It is hard to place what kind of soldier this man is; is he perhaps a fellow cavalryman who, due to the conventions of funerary imagery, cannot be depicted on horseback in order to not lessen the heroic appearance of the deceased? If he were simply a regular infantryman in the army, he would have to be some sort of hoplite due to the large size of his shield. It should be noted that there is no evidence that the Bithynians ever adopted the Macedonianstyle phalanx in their army. Being a small state with neither the manpower nor the knowledge and expertise to organize and assemble such a military mechanism, they, like many of the minor states on the borders of the major Hellenistic kingdoms, simply never incorporated it into their military. As such, this kind of soldier would most likely have fought like the hoplites of Classical Greece in a looser formation. Without other similar examples to compare to, it is unfortunately impossible to determine more about this kind of soldier, but he provides tantalizing evidence that there were other, heavier elements of the infantry within the Bithynian army which are not represented in the other evidence. Equipment and Celtic Influence

53

Pfuhl and Möbius, 193-4, Abb. 54 is the closest comparison, found only about 120 km away from the findspot of Mokazis` stele in ancient Hadrianutherae near modern day Balikesir in Mysia. It dates to the late Hellenistic period and shows a soldier shaking his wife`s hand before departing for war. He has a thureos slung across his back, a sword at his left side, and a short spear leaning against his shoulder.

One of the most striking aspects of the equipment depicted on these stelai is the Celtic influences which can be seen in the arms of both cavalry and infantry. The militaries of the kingdoms surrounding Galatia seem to have widely adopted items of the traditional Celtic panoply following the crossing of the Galatian tribes to Asia Minor. What is evident also from the reliefs on these stelai is that the swords of the Gallic fashion had become popular in Bithynia, as in other parts of Asia Minor, by the second century BC. Many second century reliefs from the countryside surrounding the Pisidian city of Sagalassos show Macedonian shields with spears and multi-lobate Gallic swords,54 and the Pisidian mercenaries of the early second century Sidon garrison also carried this style of sword.55 This type of sword, marked by a hilt terminating in two or three lobes and a straight-edged blade, could vary greatly in length, and some examples (such as that worn by Pasias in Stele D, that of a Thracian cavalryman on a first century stele from Abdera,56 and an example from the second century BC Pergamene weapons reliefs57) are very long. Such long swords were mainly used by cavalry, who could employ their long reach from horseback. The swords carried by the infantrymen on Stele B and Stele C are of a more regular length, as one would expect. The final item of Gallic equipment adopted by the Bithynian army was of course the thureos, that most Celtic of armour. By the second century, most militaries around the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea had adopted the thureos in some capacity, and it had even spread as far afield as Bactria.58 While some have ascribed the widespread adoption of the thureos in the east to Roman influence,59 when the evidence from both the third and second centuries BC is considered, it is very clear that the emergence of the thureos as a common type of shield in the east coincides with the bursting of the Galatians into Asia Minor in 279. Bithynia was probably one of the first eastern states to adopt the thureos, as they were after all the first to make use of Celtic mercenaries in Asia Minor, and this is corroborated by Dionusios’ stele, dating to the third century, which depicts him carrying just such a shield. Mercenaries in the Bithynian Army Bithynia, being situated between Thrace and the Gallic tribes residing around that region in the west and Galatia in the east, was situated in an ideal area for recruiting mercenaries. Despite the Bithynians’ ethnic link to the European Thracians, there is little actual evidence for them being hired to fight in the Bithynian army. Prusias I hired Thracians to harass Byzantium during his war with that city in 219-218 BC,60 and Prusias II received a bodyguard of 500 Thracians from his Thracian son-in-law Diegylis when besieged by Attalus II in 149 BC.61 In the former case, 54

Veli Kose, Nekropolen und Grabdenkmaler von Sagalassos in Pisidien in hellenistischer und römischer zeit (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2005). 55 Nick Sekunda, The Ptolemaic Army, 18-33, Nrs.. 6-7. 56 Nick Sekunda, The Seleucid Army, 75, Fig. 22. 57 Peter Jaeckel, “Pergamenische Waffenreliefs,” Waffen- und Kostümkunde: Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde 7 (1965): 97, Fig. 7. 58 Valerii P. Nikonorov, The Armies of Bactria 700 BC - 450 AD (Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1997) 5-6, Fig. 8 m; 10, Figs. 24 a-b. 59 Most notable is Nick Sekunda in his twin publications of Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC. 60 Polubios, 4.51.8. 61 Appian, Mithridatic Wars 6.

the Thracians were clearly not a component of the Bithynian army, but rather were incited to attack Byzantium from the European side, and in the latter they composed a hastily assembled force to ensure the king’s protection rather than a part of the standing army. The Galatians also had a major presence within the Bithynian military. Nicomedes I, of course, famously shuttled the Gauls across the Bosporus in 278 BC, and he used their warriors as mercenaries to great effect against his rival claimant to the throne.62 Ziaelas, Nicomedes’ son, also employed the newly available Galatians, ironically, against his father.63 Bithynians as Mercenaries The majority of Bithynians that served abroad as mercenaries went to Egypt. This is not surprising, as the Bithynians were not friendly to the Seleucids, the primary employers of soldiers from Asia Minor, and so the natural choice would be then to serve for the major opponent of the Seleucids, the Ptolemies. The Ptolemies also possessed foreign holdings all around Bithynia - on the Thracian coast, in the Aegean, and throughout Asia Minor. There were certainly enough Bithynian soldiers present in Alexandria in the third century BC to form a military organization which dedicated a statue to a Bithynian mercenary and gymnasiarch.64 The third century stele of Dionusios the Bithynian, whose painted funerary stele is among the best preserved of those found in the Alexandrian funerary complexes, provides us with an image of just such a soldier. He is armed with an iron helmet, a thureos, and a long spear and two shorter javelins.65 One epitaph of a Bithynian mercenary that fought in Egypt is particularly poignant:66 Former leader of warriors in battle, I put to flight the nations of a destructive hand, firm on the ships, courageous on the ground. Commanding the sanguinary troop of Enualios when repelling the bandits in the glens of Asia, I looted the corpses of the vanquished natives. Then I came to the illustrious fortress of Egypt, mother of corn, to provide her princes with my strength and my conviction. Today, while I advanced towards my eighth decade, Hades confined me in his dark hollows. I did not have to suffer to see my children perish; rather, I watched until my very end as the children of my children cared for me in my old age. The homeland which gave birth to me is Apamea, but the earth of Egypt saw me dying; me, the friend of all mortals, Diazelmis, honoured by the kings. O Passing, can you say to me: "Goodbye, may the earth lay lightly upon you!" Three Bithynians who erected stelai in the necropolis of Demetrias in Macedonia in the late third or early second century BC were likely mercenaries of the local garrison as well.67 A lone epitaph from a Pergamene garrison in Aegina also includes what is most likely the name of a Bithynian mercenary stationed there.68 Even so, this evidence is sparse compared to that for many other peoples of Asia Minor (or the Bithynians’ European Thracian kin, for that matter) who served as mercenaries in the Hellenistic period. As the Bithynian military seems to have 62

Memnon, 19 (Fragmenta Historicum Graecorum III, 535). Livy, 38.16.6. Pausanias, 10.23.14. 63 Memnon, 22. 64 Launey, 435. 65 Brown, 28, Nr. 27, Pl. XX, 1. 66 Launey, 808-809. 67 Launey, 436. 68 Launey, 436.

been primarily a citizen military, most Bithynians capable of bearing arms would have been necessary to maintain the army in the tumultuous period from the late third century well into the first century. Conclusion The evidence of these stelai, many of them complete and very well preserved, provides a unique opportunity to examine, at least in part, the military of a minor Hellenistic kingdom. Bithynia’s eastern contemporaries – Pergamum, Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia, and the kingdoms to the east of the Black Sea – have not yielded similar archaeological information, either for lack of excavation or lack of preservation. Only a tiny amount of Hellenistic-era artifacts relating to these kingdoms have been found (Pergamum yielding by far the most), and only a fraction of those relate to their militaries. Direct iconographic evidence for the military of Mithridates VI, who challenged Rome and led a war which effectively divided the kingdoms around the Black Sea for Pontus or against the Romans, is pitifully small: a stele from Apollonia Pontica mentioning the king and depicting a helmet and a sword carved in relief is among the few to have been found and published.69 For this reason the information provided by this body of stelai is very important. It provides a clear image of a military on the periphery, unable to afford or maintain a massive army with scores of mercenaries and a variety of heavily-armed infantry and cavalry and thus forced to rely on a force composed primarily of native citizenry. The evidence is just complete enough that one can begin to make out all the individual components. The infantry was made up of the more common thureophoroi fighting alongside their heavier companions-in-arms the peltasts and perhaps a body of heavily-armed hoplites as well. These core troops were supported by the light promachoi infantry and the skirmishing light cavalry as well as the crucial heavy cavalry. A navy was maintained to control Bithynian trade in the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara and, undoubtedly, to ward off their seagoing neighbours who also resided on the coast of the Black Sea. All of these elements are primarily supplied with manpower from Bithynian citizens, the majority of whom inhabited the countryside around the main poleis. Greeks from these cities may sometimes have been levied into the military in times of need, but no evidence exists to support this. The kings took a pragmatic approach to the hiring of mercenaries – when the need arose or the opportunity was presented, they would be hired, but they were by no means a permanent fixture of the army like they were in most Hellenistic militaries. In addition to the stelai discussed, hundreds of Hellenistic gravestones from northwestern Turkey have been excavated that have not yet been published or properly analyzed. When or if these are published, some of them could hopefully shine more light on the militaries of the Bithynians and of other minor kingdoms around Asia Minor in the Hellenistic period. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barker, Phil. "The Use of Shields by Achaemenid and Hellenistic Cavalry." Slingshot, 1981: 27-29. Beazley, J.D. Etruscan Vase-Painting. London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1947. 69

Dintsis, Fig. 72, 1.

Bienkowski, Piotr. Les Celtes dans les Arts Mineurs Gréco-Romains. Cracow: Imprimerie de l'Université des Jagellons à Cracovie, 1928. Billows, R.A. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Brown, Blanche R. Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics in the Alexandrian Style. Cambridge: Archaeological Institute of America, 1957. Illinois Greek Club trans. Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. Corsten, Thomas. "Onomastic evidence for the settlement of Thracians and Galatians in Asia Minor." Paper presented at the Second Colloquium of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Oxford. Cremer, Marielouise. Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien 1.Mysien. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 1991. Cremer, Marielouise. Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien 2. Bithynien. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, 1991. Dintsis, Petros. Hellenistische Helme. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, 1986. Griffith, G.T. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World. London: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Jaeckel, Peter. "Pergamenische Waffenreliefs." Waffen- und Kostümkunde: Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Historische Waffen- und Kostümkunde, 1965: 94-122. Kose, Veli. Nekropolen und Grabdenkmaler von Sagalassos in Pisidien in hellenistischer und römischer zeit. Turnhout: Brepols publishers, 2005. Launey, Marcel. Recherches sur les Armées Hellenistiques. Paris: Université de Paris, 1949. Nikonorov, Valerii P. The Armies of Bactria 700 BC - 450 AD. Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1997. Peschlow, Urs, Anneliese Peschlow-Bindokate, and Michael Wörrle. "Die Sammlung Turan Beler in Kimbaba bei Sile (II) Antike und byzantinische Denkmäler von der bithynischen Schwarzmeerküste." Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 2002: 430-436. Pfuhl, Ernst, and Hans Möbius. Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1979. Rostovtzeff, M. Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1941. Sekunda, Nicholas. Republican Roman Army 200-104 BC. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1996. Sekunda, Nick. Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC. Volume 1: The Seleucid Army. Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1993.

—. Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 BC. Volume 2: The Ptolemaic Army. Stockport: Montvert Publications, 1995. Ueda-Sarson, Luke. "The Evolution of Hellenistic Infantry, part 1: The Reforms of Iphikrates." Slingshot, 2002: 31-32. Winifried, Held, and Frank Rumscheid. "Erinnerungen an Mokazis." Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 1994: 89106.