LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L ...

382 criStian eMilian GhiŢĂ
Who were then these men, who were entrusted with a difficult task,
showed considerable military acumen, only to fall short at the very moment
of the confrontation? the only things we know about their equipment come
from the description of their rout made by plutarch – namely that their
exposed bodies (τὰ γυμνὰ) were perfect targets for projectiles and that
many were killed impaled by their own spears (τοῖς δόρασι). 9 there existed
in the hellenistic Age a type of troops characterised at the same time by
possession of spears and a lack of armour. Depending on the shape and size
of their shield, they could be called peltastaí, euzonoi or thyreophoroi. the
peltastai used the small, round buckler called πέλτη and the thyreophoroi
the large, oval θύρεος, while the euzonoi represented, according to polybios
(pol., 5.79.3) a division in their own right, perhaps halfway between the
two of the above, if we are to believe that plutarch’s description of the
Achaean troops before philopoemen’s reforms. 10 the fact in plutarch’s
brief narrative there is absolutely no mention of shields – of either type – is
unfortunate, but by no means surprising: soldiers on the run have always
found it expedient to leave it behind, content to buy another one, so long as
that meant they would live to see another day, as Archilochos himself had
advised with healthy humour. 11
this is not the first moment when we hear of the presence of such troops
in a battle waged by Mithradates’ army. In the year 89, when the pontic
vanguard formed exclusively of light infantry and some heavy cavalry met
with the entire Bithynian army on the banks of the river Amnias, these
soldiers had covered themselves with glory. In fact, Archelaos and his
brother neoptolemos only won that day thanks to their capacity to perform
delicate manoeuvres (such as a controlled retreat while engaged in combat)
and to their extraordinary combat spirit.
While we may be sure they belonged, indeed, to the branch of light
infantry, for Appian is sure to emphasize this, both in the opening passages
and in his comments on the aftermath of the battle, the exact nature of
their equipment eludes us. Appian does, in fact, label them εὐζῶνοι (App.,
Mithr., 64), but one should be cautious and not consider it necessarily a
9 “θόρυβος ἦν πολὺς καί φυγὴ τῶν βαρβάρων καί φόνος ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ὁ πλεῖστος,
οὐ γὰρ ὑπέμειναν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πρανοῦς φερόμενοι τοῖς τε δόρασι περιέπιπτον αὐτοὶ τοῖς
ἑαυτῶν καί κατεκρήμνιζον ὠθοῦντες ἀλλήλους, ἄνωθεν ἐπικειμένων τῶν πολεμίων καί τὰ
γυμνὰ παιόντων, ὥστε τρισχιλίους πεσεῖν περὶ τὸ Θούριον” (plut., Sull., 18).
10 “ἐχρῶντο μὲν γὰρ θνρεοῖς μὲν εὐπετέσι διὰ λεπτότητα καὶ στενωτέροις τοῦ
περιστέλλειν τὰ σώματα, δόρασι δὲ μικροτέροις πολὺ τῶν σαρισῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πλῆκται
καὶ μάχιμοι πόρρωθεν ἦσαν ὑπὸ κουφότητος, προσμίξαντες δὲ τοῖς πολεμίοις ἔλαττον
εἶχον” (plut., Philopoemen, 9.1).
11 Fragment 6 in the Diehl edition, 5 in West’s edition.