The Ptolemaic Army
Abstract and Keywords
This essay discusses the recruitment and payment of soldiers, as well as the ethnic composition, organization, and training of the Ptolemaic army, through the examination of papyri, of inscriptions, and of Polybius’ account of the Ptolemaic victory against the Seleucids at Raphia. It describes the military reforms that took place between the 220s and 160s BCE in response to external and domestic pressures, in particular the integration of large numbers of Egyptian soldiers. It shows how the development of the socio-economic status of diverse groups of soldiers and cultural exchanges occurring among members of the army, although facilitated by these changes, also shaped them. While the Ptolemaic army is best described as multiethnic, it did not lack coordination on the battlefield, due to skilled leadership and to soldiers’ feeling of attachment to the dynasty, which was reinforced by land grants and other privileges.
The study of the Ptolemaic army intersects with the political, economic, social, and cultural history of the Hellenistic World (323–30 BCE) and contributes to our understanding of premodern states.1 As one of the most important armies of the Hellenistic period, it has been studied within the context of Hellenistic warfare in the 1930s and 1940s in the work of Griffith on mercenaries and in that of Launey on political and social aspects, especially the origins of soldiers. More recent studies on Hellenistic warfare, while focusing on other geographic areas, tend only to discuss Egypt briefly.2 The reasons for this are at least twofold: first, the nature of the sources (mainly papyrological, although inscriptions, archaeology, and ancient authors complement the papyri);3 second, the emphasis of the papyrological sources on the settlement of soldiers in the Egyptian countryside (chora), their economic activities, and the legal status of their land (klêroi), rather than on military aspects.
Therefore, since the earliest comprehensive studies on the Ptolemaic army by Meyer and Lesquier more than a century ago, scholarly attention has been devoted to the development of the cleruchic system, i.e., the settlement of soldiers. Uebel compiled a list of cleruchs, accompanied by an overview of this system that has now been expanded and updated by Scheuble-Reiter’s study of the cavalry-settlers.4 A second important field of research, the ethnic diversity of soldiers from the eastern Mediterranean and their interaction with the local population, as well as the role of Egyptians in the army, has been made particularly fruitful with the development of Demotic studies. The analysis of Greek and Egyptian documents by scholars, such as Clarysse and Winnicki, along with the examination of bilingual family archives owned by soldiers, has shed light on social changes in the second century.5 The most recent study on the army by Fischer-Bovet attempts to connect these social developments with political changes and military organization.6 A renewed interest for understanding military equipment and organization, the third main field of investigation, is exemplified by Sekunda’s work on the infantry reform, which combines archaeological material with the papyrological analysis of military titles and ranks collected in the Prosopographia Ptolemaica (abbreviated PP) by Peremans and Van’t Dack.7
In order to facilitate comparisons with other armies in future studies, the present essay, by analyzing the extent to which the Ptolemies were able to optimize the recruitment and organization of their army to fit its functions, raises a series of fundamental questions about the state’s capacity for war making. What were the incentives for a soldier in their army? Could the Ptolemies have acted differently? Did their army adapt over time? This essay argues that, although their army can be described as a multiethnic army, a type of military organization generally thought of as inefficient and difficult to coordinate, this multiethnic structure did not weaken their army.8 In fact, the Ptolemies did not need to assemble troops from far-away regions, as did the Achaemenids and Seleucids, and excelled at training them together for particular campaigns (e.g., their preparation for the battle of Raphia against the Seleucid king Antiochus III). In addition, they successfully employed the figure of the king as a unifying symbol. Traces of compartmentalization according to ethnic groups, still visible in the battle of Raphia in 217, diminished over time. The many inconclusive wars and battles against other Hellenistic armies, however, indicate that no state was able to completely triumph. Even if “symmetric” warfare, i.e., against comparable states and armies, triggered expected domestic restructuring, it did not have major repercussions on the outcome.9 Nevertheless, throughout the third century, the Ptolemies expanded and maintained an empire with territories throughout the eastern Mediterranean.10 After the loss of many external possessions by 198, they still prevented foreign invasions of Egypt, except for Antiochus IV’s invasions in 170–168. Even after the loss of most external territories, they held Cyrenaica and Cyprus, except when dynastic conflicts divided the territories between family members.
Functions, Recruitment and Payment, and Origin of Soldiers
The Beginning of the Ptolemaic Army and Its Functions
In the tumultuous years following the death of Alexander the Great and his conquest of the Persian Empire, the attachment to a general by his soldiers was essential to success. Ptolemy, having secured the governorship of Egypt as satrap in 323, probably imported soldiers (although evidence is lacking to establish this fact firmly).11 He also benefited from 8,000 talents remaining in the Egyptian treasury, with which he could hire officers and soldiers, in addition to the 4,000 soldiers garrisoned in Egypt by Alexander in 331.12 He then enlarged his army with war prisoners and soldiers who had changed sides, for instance during Perdiccas’ and Demetrius’ failed attempts to conquer Egypt.13 Thus, by the battle of Gaza against Demetrius in 312, Ptolemy, with 18,000 infantrymen and 4,000 cavalry, as well as Egyptian soldiers, further won forty-three elephants and settled 8,000 prisoners in Egypt.14 Ptolemy also invested in a fleet, which added to the cost of the army.15 To the thirty triremes left by Alexander in Egypt, he added 170–180 warships for a battle against Demetrius near Cyprus, although he was defeated with serious losses (about half of his army and fleet).16
While the functions of the Ptolemaic army are often described as mainly defensive, the achievements of the first Ptolemies demonstrate its use as a tool of imperial expansion. By the time of Ptolemy III, the Ptolemaic external possessions, which included Cyrenaica, Coele-Syria, and Cyprus, extended to cities from Pamphylia to the Hellespont, southern Thrace, and to cities in the Aegean islands and in Crete (although direct control was not always continuous).17 Soldiers served to expand and to defend these territories, as well as to protect Egypt, with its main garrisons at Alexandria, which included multiple units of the royal guard, as well as at Pelusium in the Delta and at Elephantine in Upper Egypt.18 Even with no need for a military conquest of Egypt, the garrisons and military settlers served to assert Ptolemaic control over the territory. Soldiers were mobilized to repress revolts and in case of dynastic conflicts, with obvious counter-productive results in the latter case, since they no longer served under a unified government to control the territory.19 When needed, members of the army, such as the machimoi, served as the guards of officials, while soldiers also secured the collection of taxes.20
Recruitment and Payment
In order to obtain reliable soldiers and to maintain their loyalty, the Ptolemies developed several strategies. The first was to hire mercenaries with their salary (misthos or opsônion) paid in cash, about one silver drachma per day for infantrymen in the third century, complemented by grain rations. During the third century, they came widely from the eastern Mediterranean and were sometimes called misthophoroi xenoi (literally “foreigners paid with a salary”).21 However, in the second and first century, misthophoroi were mainly recruited within Egypt, notably among the Egyptian population.22 The second strategy was to grant to soldiers plots of land called klêroi, whose size varied according to the military rank and unit, as well as stathmoi, or residences, often within the home of local inhabitants. The most common size of klêroi for cavalrymen was 100, 80, and 70 arouras and for infantrymen 30 or 25 arouras.23 Grants of klêroi were not limited to soldiers from outside Egypt but at least from around 230 BC extended to machimoi, usually but not exclusively of Egyptian origin, who received smaller lots similar in size to traditional land allotments in Egypt (five arouras and later seven, ten, or twenty)—five arouras being what a family needed to live on.24
Land grants encouraged service under the Ptolemies, but were such payments more appealing than those under other Hellenistic kings, who also provided land?25 The legendary wealth of Egypt, as well as royal propaganda, is particularly evident in a hymn of Theocritus: “Ptolemy is the best paymaster a free man could have” (14.59). Such wealth probably made service for the Ptolemies more attractive, and the shifting loyalty of soldiers, especially in the fourth century, suggests that the Ptolemies offered more in particular circumstances. As Stefanou recently has stressed, larger payments by the Ptolemies than other Hellenistic kings to their soldiers is not certain but evidence for extensive land grants is unambiguous.26 Overall, few mutinies are recorded, the most notable of which were the revolt of the 4,000 Galatian mercenaries under Ptolemy II and those after the battle of Raphia in 217, when Ptolemy IV’s troops were in Coele–Syria to assert power on temporarily lost territories and that some of them seem to have mutinied.27 Yet even the Ptolemies faced the betrayal of officers and soldiers at critical times, such as the Fourth Syrian War.28 Desertions also occurred during the Great Revolt in Egypt (206–186), when troops joined the rebels. The Ptolemies handled these situations through amnesty and land grants.29
Provenance of Soldiers and Shift over Time
In order to assess how the multiethnic army of the Ptolemies functioned, one must first examine recruitment patterns and the origin of soldiers. The provenance of soldiers has been discussed in great depth for over a century, since many Ptolemaic papyri and inscriptions from the third century recorded the origin of individuals—patris in Greek and “ethnics” in papyrological scholarship—as part of their official identity.30 The systematic compilation of all individuals recorded with an ethnic in Hellenistic Egypt by La’da in 2002 allows for new assessments and adjustments to the analysis proposed by Bagnall in 1984 on the provenance of cleruchs.31 Using Uebel’s list of cleruchs down to 146, Bagnall noted 453 cleruchs for whom the ethnic was recorded, mostly Greco-Macedonians, with a large percentage from Macedonia, Cyrenaica, Mainland Greece, the Aegean, and Asia Minor, with the Thracians as the largest remaining group. Because two-third of the cleruchs came from areas not under Ptolemaic control, Bagnall suggested that cleruchs were “the descendants of those soldiers in the army formed by Ptolemy I Soter during his first couple of decades of satrapal rule.”32 In his view, they formed “almost a closed class,” therefore it was highly unlikely in the third or second century for a mercenary to receive a klêros. The geographical distribution has been confirmed by Scheuble-Reiter’s new study of cavalry-cleruchs and Stefanou’s updated list of 752 cleruchs, although they both have questioned the cleruchs as a closed class.33 Scheuble-Reiter stresses convincingly that, since the soldiers whom Ptolemy I obtained from Alexander’s army were not sufficient, the Ptolemies hired soldiers from regions beyond their control, in particular war prisoners and defectors.34 She notes that the marriage of Ptolemy II with the daughter of Lysimachus, Arsinoe I, may explain the strong presence of Thracians. In addition, soldiers may plausibly have come from the new territories conquered by Ptolemy III up to Thrace in the 240s.35 Yet the larger absolute number of cleruchs (404) for the period 242–205 than for the previous period (138) is not as problematic as Stefanou suggests and does not have to be explained by high numbers of immigrants in the last decades of the third centuries.36 Rather, it is the consequence of Ptolemy III’s intensive settlement of mercenaries already serving the Ptolemies who received klêroi after the Third Syrian War (246–241), since no military campaigns were undertaken in the following decades.37
Indeed, mercenaries—especially officers and cavalrymen—often received a plot of land at the end of a campaign.38 In fact, Bagnall mentions also an example of land grants after a war, but to captives and in his view perhaps only temporarily.39 The best evidence for land grants appears after the Second Syrian War (260–253), when klêroi were attributed to soldiers in the Fayyum, as demonstrated by Clarysse,40 who shows that the subsequent royal visit to the Fayyum was connected to these allotments. Therefore, it remained possible for mercenaries to become cleruchs, even in the third century BC. The existence of misthophoroi-cleruchs and taktomisthoi-cleruchs, cleruchs still on active duty41 or mercenaries with allotted land (particularly officers),42 suggests that some mercenaries became cleruchs in the third century, with these categories being more fluid than previously thought.
The Ptolemies used the relationships of their courtiers and military officers with their home towns and regions when they needed to hire new mercenaries.43 The provenance of mercenaries in the third century broadly resembles that of cleruchs, although some regions are better represented among cleruchs (e.g., Macedonia) and others among mercenaries (e.g., Crete). In their external possessions, such as Asia Minor, the Aegean, and the Levant, the Ptolemies garrisoned soldiers from these areas. These mercenaries had less interest in settling in Egypt as cleruchs than the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander and Ptolemy I.44 Even so, some became cleruchs in Egypt, although their proportion was dwarfed by the large number of cleruchs and their descendants who initially came from Macedonia, Cyrenaica and Thrace.
Recruitment in the second and first centuries differed because immigration had stopped and because the Ptolemies had lost most of their territories beyond Egypt by 198 BC, except for Cyrenaica and Cyprus. Ethnics now were less systematically used in official documents, and some of them, such as Macedonians and Persians, became fictive ethnics, i.e., they represented the individual’s military status and no longer his true origin.45 Ptolemy V and Ptolemy VI still maintained strong diplomatic relations with the Achaean league, Athens, and Asia Minor, which could supply small numbers of soldiers when necessary (although they sometimes refused to provide any).46 In the second and first centuries, the Ptolemies often stationed mercenaries from Judea and Idumaea in their Egyptian garrisons.47 Soldiers from Judea, known as Ioudaioi in official documents and already settled as cleruchs under Ptolemy I, sometimes within the same village such as Trikomia in the Fayyum, were still cleruchs with the ethnic Ioudaioi in the second century.48
Recruitment of Egyptians should not be overlooked. They were already used in the army from the time of Ptolemy I, though in far smaller numbers than in the second and first centuries. Diodorus notes that they fought in Gaza in 312, where, according to Rodriguez, they may have defeated Demetrius’ elephants as light infantry armed with missiles.49 They also served as light infantry on ships during the Chremonidean War and played an important role in the fleet from the beginning of the dynasty.50 In addition, those termed machimoi in papyri and inscriptions, mostly Egyptians, were used as guards already in the third century and, having received small klêroi from at least 230 BC, thus formed one category of cleruchs.51 Egyptians fought as heavy infantrymen in the phalanx at the battle of Raphia in 217. While Polybius’ account (5.107) suggests mistakenly that they were armed for the first time at this battle, it is in fact their number (20,000) that was truly exceptional and perhaps also their equipment as heavy infantry. The extensive integration of Egyptians, and also those of Greco-Egyptian origin, is a hallmark of the Ptolemaic army in the second and first centuries (discussed further under “Reforms of the Army”).
Organization, Training, and the Army at War in the Third Century
This section examines the choices of the Ptolemies regarding the organization of the army in the third century, especially whether the diverse origins of soldiers prevented coordination on the battlefield. In order to answer this question, Polybius’s account of Ptolemy IV’s victory at Raphia, the only description of the entire Ptolemaic army, is compared to ranks and units found in papyri and inscriptions. The general organization of the army, including military training, suggests that ethnicity was partially an organizational principle but that diverse ethnic groups were able to train and fight conjointly. Thus, the multiethnic character of the army did not create difficulties.
As with other Hellenistic armies, the Ptolemaic military forces resembled the Macedonian army of Alexander, while each gradually developed minor variations.52 The most important components of the Ptolemaic army were the infantry and the cavalry, as well as the fleet and special forces, such as elephants in the third century (although the latter two are not discussed here).53 The cavalry had become an essential force under Philip II of Macedonia. The ratio cavalry-infantry in the army of Alexander and the Successors reached 1:3.5, compared to 1:10 in the Classical Athenian army.54 By the end of the third century, the larger ratio was again more common, as at Raphia (5,000 cavalry vs. 70,000 infantry). The Ptolemies maintained a standing army, including troops in garrisons in Egypt and abroad, who were both professional soldiers (commonly called mercenaries) and cleruchs. The presence of cleruchs in garrison was necessary for troops training but the length of their service each year is not known.55 The direct evidence for military training in Egypt is limited to the description of the troops gathered in Alexandria between 219 and 217 during the Fourth Syrian War, although it likely took place in garrisons, as well as in hippodromes and in gymnasia. Hippodromes were located in Alexandria and in Memphis, while horse competitions were organized in the cities and in villages.56 The foundation of gymnasia by private individuals in villages, in addition to gymnasia in poleis, is a peculiarity of Ptolemaic Egypt and reflects the needs of the settlers. Although evidence of boxing and wrestling shows that physical training for soldiers took place, military training at gymnasia is not certain, as direct evidence is missing.57 Because men of Egyptian origin probably could be members of the gymnasium from the second century BC on (discussed further under “Soldiers’ Socio-Economic Status and Cultural Environment”), unity thus was fostered, mainly among officers.
The training and fighting of cavalrymen of different origins together occurred at two levels, with cavalry units grouped together by region on the battlefield and with the presence of groups of different origin within cavalry units. Polybius notes that, at Raphia, 2,000 cavalrymen (of 5,000) were Greek mercenaries hired as misthophoroi, a term used in papyri of the same period for professional cavalry who served the Ptolemies but were not granted klêroi.58 Having come from a variety of cities and regions, they were trained together by Echecrates of Thessaly (5.65.6), one of the five top army commanders, and played an essential role in the victory by defeating Antiochus’ right wing (5.85). The other 3,000 cavalrymen trained together under Polycrates of Argos, another top commander, and fought on the left wing (5.82.3). This group consisted of those at the court (peri tên aulên), who numbered 700, those from Libya (apo Libuês), and those enlisted in the country (enchôrious), who were cleruchs from various origins settled in Egypt (though certainly not Egyptian).
We only can hypothesize concerning the correspondence of Polybius’ account to the actual squadrons of the Ptolemaic army, since Polybius does not use technical terms found in papyri.59 The largest cavalry unit was the hipparchy, led by a hipparchos (cavalry-officer). Based on military treaties by the Tacticians, it seems that hipparchies consisted of 400 to 500 men divided into two ilai.60 The titles of officers used in Ptolemaic documents confirm the division in ilai: the epilachês and the ilarchês, the latter presumably a junior colleague. Each ilê was divided into two lochoi headed by an epilochagos and a lochagos, and divided once again into smaller units under dekanikoi, whose number is unknown.61 At least from 235 BCE, five hipparchies were given a number.62 They grouped cavalry-cleruchs with different ethnics, who received 100 arouras and it is likely that they bought their horse with state support.63 At least from 232/1, five other hipparchies were named after populations from regions traditionally known for their cavalry: Thessalians, Thracians, Mysians, Persians, and Macedonians. Their members received seventy arouras and are thought to belong to the light cavalry. The first problem with Polybius’ account versus the papyri is that ten hipparchies equals 4,000 to 5,000 cavalry-cleruchs, yet Polybius mentions only 3,000 cavalrymen (who may correspond to cleruchs).64 A second problem is that no Libyan hipparchy existed, while Polybius notes that many cavalrymen originated from Libya. Yet the complete name of two hipparchies was “of the Persians and of the […]” and “of the Thessalians and of the other Greeks.”65 This suggests that, from the creation of the ethnic hipparchies, there was no strict ethnic organization. A core of cavalrymen from each region perhaps gave their name to the hipparchy, to which other cavalrymen were attached. Indeed, already in 232/1, there were soldiers whose individual ethnic was different from that of their hipparchy.66
To sum up, Polybius provides a simplified description of troops, while contemporary documents suggest the combination and cooperation of soldiers from various origins. The best evidence for this is a group dedication of a statue in the Boubasteion of Alexandria to the officer Megamedes, who bore the official court title “of the first friends,” dated to the reign of Ptolemy IV.67 The soldiers introduce themselves as members of the association (koinon) of Thracians from Trales, to whom were attached the Masylians from Libya (sun autois proskeimeunôn), all having “fought together” (sustraeuomenôn) with Cyrenaeans and Persians, probably under Megamedes. The editors of the inscription, Carrez-Maratray, Abd el-Fattah, and Abd el-Maksoud, surmise that these troops may not have fought at Raphia.68 Even if they only served together later, this example demonstrates the combination of mercenary units—even infantrymen—or, as the editors suggest, soldiers of diverse ethnic groups, who formed the cavalry at the court.69 The latter hypothesis is appealing due to its proximity to the court milieu, as supported by the location of the dedication and by the emphasis on Megamedes’ virtue (aretê) and care (eunoia) for the king, the queen, their sons and grandsons, and their affairs (pragmata). An additional argument may support that they belonged to the royal guard: members of the royal guard often formed the core of soldier associations, and the Trales presented themselves specifically as members of a koinon (association), whom the other soldiers may have joined at this occasion.70 This inscription also shows how military leadership and the figure of the king and queen were central to the cohesion of multiethnic troops.
Polybius’ description of the infantry at Raphia gives the impression that troops were trained and fought according to ethnic groups (e.g., the 2,000 Cretans and 1,000 Neo-Cretans, who were archers, or the 3,000 Libyan heavy infantry), but this grouping may also reflect equipment rather than ethnicity. In addition, some groups mentioned by Polybius were combined together. On the battlefield, the phalanx of 25,000 heavy infantrymen trained by Andromachus and of 20,000 Egyptians trained by Sosibius advanced together as “those under Andromachus and Sosibius” (hoi peri Andromachon kai Sôsibion) (5.85.9). The men of Andromachus, however, had been trained together with 8,000 Greek mercenaries, possibly semiheavy infantry (5.65.4).71 Thracians and Gauls were trained and fought together, presumably because their equipment and weapons were similar (5.65.10).72 The 3,000 peltasts and the 3,000 infantrymen of the agêma (5.65.2) were elite troops and grouped soldiers of diverse origins, though not of Egyptian origin.73 As in the case of the cavalry, Polybius does not give details about the infantry units that compose the phalanx, a term that is attested only once in the papyri (P.Bad. IV 47). Instead, papyri mention the chiliarchoi, i.e., the officers of the largest infantry regiment (ca. 1,024 men), which was divided into two regiments led by pentakosiarchoi (ca. 512 men), each comprising two syntagmata, which were divided again into two taxeis.74 Polybius’ mention of 3,000 Libyans suggests that three chilarchies of Libyans existed, but nowhere in the documentary sources do we find such an organization. Cretans in literary sources normally referred to archers, although papyrological sources show that Cretans were also hired as cleruchs or as cavalry officers.75 Polybius again offered a simplified version by using ethnic labels that may not completely overlap with actual units.
Coordination on the Battlefield
The Ptolemaic troops at Raphia fought well together on the battlefield, despite the apparently different organizational structures in the army, including ethnicity, type of equipment, and mixed regiments. Two years of preparation for the battle allowed them to adjust to different equipment and tactics. Above all, coordination depended on the capability of the military leadership, in this case all of Greek and Macedonian origin.76 Ptolemy’s ministers, Sosibius and Agathocles, hired new condottieri, many of whom had served in Demetrius’ army, with high command under four men divided into two pairs, plus Sosibius (Polybius 5.63–65). In each pair, one was the leader of the cavalry and was probably superior to the leader of the infantry. Below them, Polybius describes two levels of command, without providing military titles (5.65), and shows how top commanders made the correct adjustments during battle. For example, when Echecrates saw that the elephants on the left wing were defeated, he developed a different tactic for the right wing by leading his cavalry around the elephants to attack the Seleucid cavalry and by ordering Phoxidas to do the same with his Greek mercenaries (5.85). The Galatians and Thracians who were positioned between Echecrates and Philoxidas must also have advanced, though Polybius does not mention their actions. At a more ideological level, the presence of the king and his sister-wife, Queen Arsinoe III (5.83.3 and 5.84.1), served to create and maintain unity and good spirit among the army. Polybius specifies that interpreters accompanied Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III to translate their speeches to their respective army before the battle (5.83.7). Yet translators were certainly not needed in the battle, when only simple orders could be heard, requiring few linguistic skills.77 Ptolemy’s appearance in front of his phalanx at a key moment of the battle boosted the moral of his Greek and Egyptian infantrymen (5.85.7). Even Arsinoe went to the troops and promised two gold minas to each soldier (3 Maccabees 1.4), not a difficult message to communicate. In any case, whether or not Arsinoe’s promise occurred in the middle of the battle, gold coins were distributed to soldiers on their return in Egypt.78 The idea of serving the king, the queen, and their charges, as in the inscription of the Boubasteion, with the economic advantages it implied, kept the troops unified on the battlefield.
Reforms of the Army
From the battle of Raphia to the 160s, a series of reforms occurred, in order to adapt to the increasing internal and external pressures on the Ptolemaic state in particular the Great Revolt in Upper Egypt (206–186), the Fifth Syrian War (202–195), during which the Ptolemies lost most their external possessions, Antiochus IV’s invasions of Egypt (170–168), and the revolt of Petosarapis (ca. 164).79 These military reforms, which illustrate the dynamic response on the part of the Ptolemies, are often overlooked due to the scattered nature of the sources. The outcome was stronger control of Upper Egypt and a less costly army through smaller grants of klêroi, both of which were achieved through increasing use and integration of Egyptian and Greco-Egyptian troops.
The first reorganization occurred just before Raphia, when the new condottieri divided the soldiers “according to classes (genê) and ages, and provided to each suitable weaponry, taking no account of what they had before. Next they organized them in a way fitting the needs at hand, breaking up the regiments and abolishing the previous paymasters’ lists” (Polybius 5.64.1–2). The extent of the reform remains difficult to assess, since no earlier full description of the army exists. Yet the replacement of top officers, called “eponymous officers” by papyrologists (as soldiers’ regiments were identified by their names), is visible in the papyrological sources.80 In addition, the creation of picked units of cavalry-cleruchs, called hoi epilegentes hippeis, also occurred in preparation for the battle.81 Shortly before, in 221, adjustments had been made to the klêroi’s size of the cavalry-cleruchs belonging to the numbered hipparchies, with the creation of eighty aroura plots next to the one hundred aroura plots.82 Regarding ethnicity, it partially was a criterion for grouping soldiers before and after Raphia.83
Changes continued under Ptolemy V, when new regiments, called laarchies with machimoi and led by laarchai, appeared between 204 and 194 BC, when two brothers with Egyptian names served as laarchai and hêgemones of machimoi at the court.84 This suggests a more coherent organization of this type of troops and their increasing role within the army, since until then regiments of machimoi were led by an hêgemôn (generic term for officer).85 By the late 170s, when Ptolemy VI was still a minor, the five ethnic hipparchies had disappeared and had been integrated into the numbered hipparchies, whose number increased from five to ten.86 Ethnic hipparchies were probably no longer equipped according to the provenance of the cavalrymen and thus had become obsolete. The cavalrymen of the numbered hipparchies then held either 100 arouras or 80 arouras (or even less), perhaps a distinction between heavy and light cavalrymen.87 The Ptolemies also used honorific titles to distinguish groups of soldiers particularly loyal after the revolt of Petosarapis, e.g., the titles of “parents of the katoikoi hippeis” or “brothers of the katoikoi hippeis.”88
Finally, the internal structure of the infantry regiment was modified, which perhaps facilitated the dispatch of smaller units. The chiliarchy may have disappeared, and pentakosiarchies were replaced by four syntagmata (also called semeia), led by hêgemones.89 Each syntagma was composed of two hekatontarchiai of one hundred men each—divided into two pentekontarchiai—and a rear unit of fifty men, led by an ouragos.90 The emergence of one-hundred-men officers and of others (e.g., the ouragos, similar to the Roman optio), led Sekunda to interpret these changes as a Romanization of the Ptolemaic army around 163.91 Yet because the regiment structure did not exactly mirror the Roman structure and due to the difficulty of tracing changes in military equipment through limited archaeological sources, Sekunda acknowledges that the extent and significance of these reforms are difficult to assess.92 Thus, they were likely to have been motivated by internal needs and diverse external influences.
In order to control more efficiently Upper Egypt after the Great Revolt, Ptolemy V established an epistrategos with military and administrative power over the region. The first of these men, who were able to coordinate the strategoi in charge of one or several nomes,93 was Comanus, the general who defeated the rebels at the end of the Great Revolt.94 In correlation to this measure, and in response to Antiochus IV’s invasions and Petosarapis’ revolt in the 160s, Ptolemy VI established new garrisons (hupaithra) in the delta, in Thebes, and further south in Crocodilopolis in the Pathyrite nome, complemented by two auxiliary camps (ochyrômata) in Pathyris and Latopolis (Esna).95 The Ptolemies garrisoned mainly Egyptian professional soldiers called misthophoroi. This title was translated in Demotic papyri as “man receiving pay” (rmt iw = f šp ḥbs).96 Soldiers of Greek origin were also dispatched, such as the cavalry officer Dryton in Pathyris.97 Ptolemy VI also transformed the Herakleopolite nome into a stronghold to protect Middle Egypt from invaders from the North by repairing the fort and building a new one in the harbor. Small warships also filled with local recruits complemented these infrastructures.98 Further south, Tenis-Akoris had a harbor that played a strategic role during the Great Revolt due to its location at the entrance of the Thebaid (Upper Egypt).99 Although the garrison is known from the late second century, it may have been established (or reinforced) as a consequence of the Great Revolt. Professional soldiers (called misthophoroi or Akôritai and misthophoroi hippeis), mostly Greco-Egyptians or Egyptian, served there in a regiment (hêgemonia), reinforced by cleruchs and katoikoi hippeis, who settled nearby in the village of Cleopatra.100 Around fifty kilometers south, in the nome-capital Hermopolis, the garrison gathered both soldiers who were descendants of settlers who came in the third century BC (I.Herm. 4, ca. 125 BC) and a large number mercenaries, xenoi Apollôniatiai, who bore Semitic names (I.Herm. 5 and I.Herm 6, 80/79 BC).101 In the first inscription, the subunits are named after their officer, sometimes included in larger units, such as the troops “from the Thebaid” (l. 52), though in two cases the subunits are named after both an ethnic group and the officer (of the Cretans of Aristokartos from Gortyn and of the Cyrenaeans of Andronikos, l. 56–58). Launey doubted that these subunits were filled with men from these regions but Bernand does not take position in the re-edition of the stele.102 The question remains open but it cannot be excluded that the core of small subunits sometimes consisted of mercenaries hired at the same place.103
This period is strongly marked by reorganization and local recruitment, especially of Egyptians, complemented by groups of mercenaries speaking Semitic languages. In Upper Egypt, these Egyptians bore the ethnic Persês while serving and Persês tês epigonês during the periods when not serving. By giving these men privileged status, the Ptolemies strengthened their loyalty and avoided possible episodes of secession in Upper Egypt.104 For the same purpose, Egyptians were not only hired as professional soldiers but some also received plots of land of five arouras (pentarouroi machimoi). They later received plots of seven and ten arouras (as heptarouroi and dekarouroi machimoi) and larger plots of twenty arouras as cavalry (machimoi hippeis), especially in the Fayyum.105 Some policemen of Egyptian origin were promoted to the katoikia, i.e., the privileged group of cavalry-cleruchs often called katoikoi hippeis or katoikoi from the second century, although they did not receive klêroi as large as the third century cavalry-settlers (100 or 80 arouras) and sometimes did not receive larger klêroi at all. Because they tended to adopt a Greek name and an ethnic, they are difficult to detect in the sources unless their two names, Greek and Egyptian, appear in a same document or archive.106 New katoikoi were also mostly granted smaller plots, often fifty or forty arouras, while they still held the title of 100-aroura men and 80-aroura men (hekatontarourai and ogdoêkontarouroi).107 The katoikoi hippeis, now grouping individuals of diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, formed a far more heterogeneous group than in the third century but still acted as a unified group by petitioning to defend their privileges, especially fiscal ones (P.Lips II 124).108 Overall, the smaller size of plots given to katoikoi decreased the disparity between the size of allotment of the different groups of cleruchs, even if machimoi, most often Egyptians, had the smaller plots.
Soldiers’ Socio-Economic Status and Cultural Environment
The socio-economic status of soldiers and the cultural environment also went through important changes between the third and second century BC, partly allowing and partly shaped by these reforms. Despite the diverse origins of soldiers and their heterogeneous economic power, interaction in garrisons and in the villages occurred more than often thought and allowed the Ptolemies to reduce the problems of coordination common in multiethnic armies. This interaction happened at two levels, first between Greek-speaking soldiers and then between these men and soldiers of Egyptian origin.
Throughout the third century, interactions between Greek-speaking soldiers of various origins increased when grouped together in the phalanx or as mercenaries in battles (e.g., Raphia), or when they returned to their villages and towns in Egypt. Distinctions gradually vanished, especially in the Egyptian chora,109 and newcomers inhabited the same quarter or lived next to Egyptians.110 Although this proximity could trigger tensions, often interpreted as ethnic, but due to a combination of factors (socio-economic, gender, religious),111 intermarriage between Greek men and Egyptian women did occur, even if the sources are limited for the third century. The dedication of a temple to the Egyptian goddess Thoueris by Eirene and Theoxena, also bearing the Egyptian names Nefersouchos and Thaues, daughters of the Cyrenanean Demetrius and of his Egyptian wife Thasis, illuminates the cultural and religious exchanges that already took place within one generation under the reign of Ptolemy III (244–221).112 At the same time, some Greeks reconstructed a familiar Hellenic environment, through the founding of gymnasia in villages where they lived.113
Village gymnasia, a development unique to Egypt, also suggests that many cleruchs lived in the village where they received their klêros, at least during the period of the year when they were not serving in a garrison or on a military expedition. Therefore, absentee landlords were certainly less numerous than previously thought.114 The cleruchs’ agricultural activities led them to interact with local Egyptians, either by hiring them or leasing to them part of their klêroi. The large klêroi of officers, sometimes above 100 arouras, and those of cavalry-settlers were also used for livestock breeding, especially goats and sheep, which offered business opportunities, including wool production or the sale of animals.115 In addition, wine production was particularly prominent among cleruchs. Perhaps 60 percent of the Fayyum’s vine was produced by cleruchs, with the return one-and-a-half times higher than that of an agricultural worker.116 They benefited from a tax-reduction on the apomoira, a tax on vineyards and orchards, when they were away fighting or training in garrisons.117 Cleruchs and officers had a very comfortable living standard, as they owned slaves and property in addition to the holding of their klêroi. They thus drew up wills when anticipating a complicated inheritance, due to multiple marriages or successive cohabitations.118 While far less is known about professional soldiers in garrisons, an average wage of one silver drachma per day in the third century, as well as the prospect of promotion and grant of a klêros, also suggests a comfortable living standard.
In the second century, the economic situation of the cleruchs deteriorated, as new cavalry-cleruchs received smaller plots and as a large proportion of the cleruchs were now machimoi. However, by belonging to the army and holding land/fiscal privileges, most of them still enjoyed a good living standard in comparison to unskilled laborers. The social leveling that occurred among cleruchs, in view of the smallest size of klêroi given to katoikoi, may have brought these groups closer together.119 In royal decrees and amnesty decrees, the rights of the katoikoi hippeis on their klêroi were confirmed with those of new members entering the katoikia (P.Tebt. I 124, l. 30–36, 118 BC). As different groups of machimoi also had their rights confirmed regarding their klêroi (P.Tebt. I 5, l. 44–48), both katoikoi hippeis and machimoi clearly mattered to the king. Moreover, relations between katoikoi hippeis, cleruchs, and professional soldiers of Greco-Egyptian and Egyptian origin were also visible in garrisons, such as Akoris. Indeed, some officers of the misthophoroi became cleruchs, while misthophoroi including Dionysios son of Kephalas, likely of Greco-Egyptian or Libyan origin, interacted with soldiers from different units, ranks, and ethnic background.120 Dionysios was also a priest for a local cult of the sacred ibis, a part-time position, and owned some land (though not a klêros) and cows.121 That individuals belonging to the (lower) local elite of the village became soldiers was not exceptional,122 and the Ptolemies certainly benefited from such men with a foot in both milieux. Not only did the family of Dionysios keep documents that formed a bilingual archive, but he wrote both in Greek and in Demotic Egyptian and bore an Egyptian name, as did his wife and his mother.123 Further south in the new garrisons of Pathyris, some soldiers also held priestly functions.124 Officers of Greek origin were stationed in these garrisons, as the Cretan cavalry officer Dryton in Pathyris, whose bilingual family archive is extensively preserved.125 He interacted economically and socially with local individuals, notably with Egyptian infantry misthophoroi, and married the daughter of one, Apollonia-Senmonthis. Their daughters, also bearing double names, married (and divorced) Egyptian misthophoroi, as recorded in demotic contracts.126 Even if the presence of a Cretan officer could have been initiated by the government to oversee local troops, as Vandorpe suggests, Dryton illustrates that garrison life facilitated social and ethnic integration.127
Interaction between soldiers also occurred within socio-religious associations, where native Egyptian gods and the king and his family were worshipped and celebrated during festivals, such as associations of the basilistai or philo-basilistai devoted to the cult of the king. During the War of the Scepter in Syria (103–101), an Egyptian officer from Pathyris, Portis, and the neaniskoi from the semeion (a unit of misthophoroi) wrote to another group of soldiers, named collectively as philo-basilistai in the address, concerning the election of a new president for the association of the god Nechtpharous, a local version of the crocodile god Souchos. 128 The nature of the connections between these different groups cannot be reconstructed in detail, but their overlap reflects that the local gods, together with the kings, played a unifying role within the army. Some Egyptians, presumably officers, could become members of the gymnasium by the late second century.129 Moreover, other associations named after an ethnic group, such as koina and politeumata, were probably not so restrictive in terms of membership. The core of such groups were often soldiers, and the latter group included other fellow soldiers to honor particular members, as in the late third century dedication of the Bubasteion, or the king and his family, as in early first century Hermopolis.130 As can be seen through the financing of the construction of Egyptian temples and dedications to the king,131 soldiers from various backgrounds developed ways to accommodate—and promote—both Hellenic traditions and Egyptian culture and religion, a process that was accelerated by the proximity and collaboration of Greek, Egyptian, and mixed-origin troops.
The Ptolemies were able to optimize the recruitment and to adapt it to diverse geopolitical contexts. In the late-fourth and third century, they relied extensively on soldiers from outside Egypt, and on their descendants, in order to expand and protect their empire. Their policy of extensive land grants attracted soldiers, including those of their rivals. At the same time, they were not reluctant to use Egyptian troops from the beginning of the dynasty; 20,000 of them even fought in the phalanx at Raphia in 217 and charged conjointly with the Greek phalanx. Though the Ptolemaic army was multiethnic, it was only partially organized according to ethnicity, which over time prevented compartmentalization and the subsequent lack of coordination. Above all, appropriate training and skilled leadership permitted coordination on the battlefield.
A series of military reforms regarding regiments’ structure, recruitment and distribution of the troops, and perhaps to some extent equipment (but the sources are limited and difficult to interpret), occurred between the 220s and the 160s to adapt to the new political and social situation. Local recruits, especially Egyptians and Greco-Egyptians, became preeminent in the second and first centuries. They were largely found among the machimoi and misthophoroi, but they could also integrate with other troops and into higher status. One could have expected that the Ptolemies would no longer hire Egyptians after the Great revolt, but on the contrary co-opting Egyptians became the best strategy to control again Upper Egypt, at the same time lowering the cost of the army. The diversity of troops (cavalry, infantry, professional soldiers, and cleruchs) stationed in or near the garrisons, as well as the settlement of different types of cleruchs within the same villages, facilitated collaboration and coordination between soldiers. Finally, as the Ptolemies stimulated loyalty to the dynasty by using the king as a unifying figure, together with local gods, and by granting privileges to all members of their army, they were able to avoid most problems encountered by multiethnic armies.
Abd el-Fattah, Ahmed, Abd el-Maksoud, Mohamed and Carrez-Maratray, Jean-Yves. “Deux inscriptions grecques du Boubasteion d’Alexandrie.” Ancient Society 44 (2014): 149–177.Find this resource:
Agut-Labordère, Damien. “Les frontières intérieures de la société militaire égyptienne: l’invasion de l’Egypte par Artaxerxes III à travers Diodore XVI 46. 4–51. 3.” Transeuphratène 35 (2008): 17–27.Find this resource:
Aperghis, G. G. The Seleukid Royal Economy: the Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Find this resource:
Austin, Michel M. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Find this resource:
Bagnall, Roger S. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 1976.Find this resource:
Bagnall, Roger S. “The Origins of Ptolemaic Cleruchs.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 21 (1984): 7–20.Find this resource:
Bagnall, Roger S. Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History. London: Routledge, 1995.Find this resource:
Bagnall, Roger S. The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Find this resource:
Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Find this resource:
Baray, Luc. Les mercenaires celtes en Europe et en Méditerranée occidentale et orientale (Ve–Ier siècle avant J.-C.). La question de leur reconnaissance archéologique. Dijon, 2014.Find this resource:
Barbantani, Silvia. Phatis nikephoros: Frammenti di elegia encomiastica nell’età delle guerre galatiche. Supplementum Hellenisticum 958 e 969. Milano: Vita e pensiero, 2001.Find this resource:
Bernand, Etienne. “Laarque.” Revue des Etudes Grecques 84 (1971): 342–349.Find this resource:
Bernand, Etienne. Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna et de sa nécropole. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1999.Find this resource:
Bingen, Jean. “Présence grecque et milieu rural ptolémaique.” In Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne, edited by M. I. Finley, pp. 215–222. Paris: Mouton, 1973.Find this resource:
Boswinkel, Ernst, and Pestman, Pieter W. Les archives privées de Dionysios, fils de Kephalas. Textes grecs et démotiques. Leiden, 1982.Find this resource:
Chaniotis, Angelos. War in the Hellenistic World: a Social and Cultural History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.Find this resource:
Chauveau, Michel. L’Egypte au temps de Cléopâtre: 180–30 av. J.-C. Paris: Hachette littératures, 1997.Find this resource:
Christensen, Thorolf. “P. Haun. Inv. 407 and cleruchs in the Edfu nome.” In Edfu, an Egyptian Provincial Capital in the Ptolemaic Period: Brussels, 3 September 2001, edited by K. Vandorpe and W. Clarysse, pp. 11–16. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, 2003.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy. “Egyptian Estate-Holders in the Ptolemaic Period.” In State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference, edited by E. Lipinski, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 5–6, pp. 731–743. Leuven, 1979.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy. “A Royal Visit to Memphis and the End of the Second Syrian War.” In Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis, edited by D. J. Crawford, J. Quaegebeur, and W. Clarysse, Studia Hellenistica 24, pp. 83–89. Leuven: Peeters, 1980.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy. “Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic Army and Administration.” Aegyptus 65 (1985): 57–66.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy. The Petrie Papyri. Second Edition (P. Petrie2). Vol. I: The Wills. Brussels, 1991a.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy. “Hakoris, an Egyptian Nobleman and His Family.” Ancient Society 22 (1991b): 235–243.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy. “Some Greeks in Egypt.” In Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (SAOC 51), Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 51, pp. 51–56. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy “Ethnic diversity and dialect among the Greeks of Hellenistic Egypt.” In The Two Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt, edited by A. M. F. W. Verhoogt and S. P. Vleeming, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 30, pp. 1–13. Boston: Brill, 1998.Find this resource:
Clarysse, Willy, and Thompson, Dorothy J. Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Find this resource:
Cohen, Getzel M. “Katoikiai, Katoikioi and Macedonians in Asia Minor.” Ancient Society 22 (1991): 41–50.Find this resource:
Cohen, Getzel M. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.Find this resource:
Cohen, Getzel M. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.Find this resource:
Cowey, James M. S., Maresch, Klaus, and Barnes, Christopher. Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154–145 v. Chr.?) (P. Phrur. Diosk.). Paderborn: Schöningh, 2003.Find this resource:
Crawford, Dorothy J. Kerkeosiris: An Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.Find this resource:
Fischer-Bovet, Christelle. “Counting the Greeks in Egypt: Immigration in the First Century of Ptolemaic Rule.” In Demography in the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches, edited by C. Holeran and A. Pudsey, pp. 135–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.Find this resource:
Fischer-Bovet, Christelle. “Egyptian Warriors: The Machimoi of Herodotus and the Ptolemaic Army.” Classical Quarterly 63 (2013): 209–236.Find this resource:
Fischer-Bovet, Christelle. Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Find this resource:
Fischer-Bovet, Christelle, and Clarysse, Willy. “A Military Reform Before the Battle of Raphia?” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 58 (2012a): 26–35.Find this resource:
Fischer-Bovet, Christelle, and Clarysse, Willy. “Silver and Bronze Standards and the Date of P. Heid. VI 383.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 58 (2012b): 26–35.Find this resource:
Foulon, Eric. “ΜΙΣΘΟΦΟΡΟΙ et ΞΕΝΟΙ hellénistiques.” Revue des Etudes Grecques 108 (1995): 211–218.Find this resource:
Foulon, Eric. “Hypaspistes, Peltastes, Chrysaspides, Argyraspides, Chalcaspides.” Revue des Etudes Anciennes 98 (1996a): 53–63.Find this resource:
Foulon, Eric. “La garde à pied, corps d’élite de la phalange hellénistique.” Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé 1 (1996b): 17–31 = “Hypaspistes, Peltastes, Chrysaspides, Argyraspides, Chalcaspides,” Revue des Etudes Anciennes 98, 53–63.Find this resource:
Fraser, Peter M. “The Ptolemaic Garrison of Hermoupolis Magna.” In Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics = Proceedings of the British Academy 148, edited by E. Matthews, pp. 69–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Griffith, Guy T. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935.Find this resource:
Guéraud, Octave. Enteuxeis, requêtes et plaintes adressées au roi d’Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.C. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1931.Find this resource:
Habermann, Wolfgang. “Gymnasien im ptolemäischen Ägypten—eine Skizze.” In Das hellenistische Gymnasion, edited by D. Kah and P. Scholz, Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel 8, pp. 335–348. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004.Find this resource:
Hauben, Hans. “Fleet Strength at the Battle of Salamis (306 B.C.).” Chiron 6 (1976): 1–5.Find this resource:
Hölbl, Günther. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. New York: Routledge, 2001.Find this resource:
Huss, Werner. Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v. Chr. Munich: Beck, 2001.Find this resource:
Klotz, David. “The statue of the dioikêtês Harchebi/Archibios. Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 47–112.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale 109 (2009): 281–310.Find this resource:
Koenen, Ludwig. Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemäische Königsfeste. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1977.Find this resource:
Kramer, Bärbel. Griechische Texte XIII: das Vertragsregister von Theogenis (P. Vindob. G 40618). Vienna: Verlag Brüder Hollinek, 1991.Find this resource:
Kramer, Bärbel. “Königseid eines Offiziers aus dem Jahr 152 v.Chr.” In Punica—Libyca—Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huss, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, edited by K. Geus and K. Zimmermann, Studia Phoenicia 16 = Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 104, pp. 323–344, Leuven, 2001.Find this resource:
Kruse, Thomas. “Die Festung in Herakleopolis und der Zwist im Ptolemäerhaus.” In Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist und äusserem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII. Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 16.–19.9.2007, edited by A. Jordens and J. F. Quack, pp. 255–267. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011.Find this resource:
La’da, Csaba A. “Ethnicity, Occupation and Tax-Status in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Egitto e vicino Oriente 17 (1994): 183–189.Find this resource:
La’da, Csaba A. Prosopographia Ptolemaica. Volume X, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.Find this resource:
Launey, Marcel. Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. Paris: De Boccard, 1949.Find this resource:
Lee, John W. I. “Appendix O. The Persian army in Herodotus.” In The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories, edited by R. B. Strassler and A. L. Purvis, pp. 805–809. New York: Pantheon Books, 2007.Find this resource:
Legras, Bernard. Néotês: recherches sur les jeunes Grecs dans l’Egypte ptolémaïque et romaine. Geneva: Droz, 1999.Find this resource:
Lesquier, Jean. Les institutions militaires de l’Egypte sous les Lagides. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1911.Find this resource:
Lewis, Naphtali. Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.Find this resource:
Malinine, Michel. “Partage testamentaire d’une propriété familiale (Pap. Moscou No. 123).” Revue des Etudes Grecques 19 (1967): 67–85.Find this resource:
McGing, Brian. “Revolt Egyptian style. Internal opposition to Ptolemaic rule.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 43, no. 2 (1997): 273–314.Find this resource:
Meadows, Andrew. “Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt.” In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, edited by R. S. Bagnall, et al. New York: Wiley, 2012.Find this resource:
Mélèze Modrzejewski, Joseph. “Dryton le Crétois et sa famille ou les mariages mixtes dans l’Égypte hellénistique.” In Aux origines de l’hellénisme. La Crète et la Grèce. Hommage à Henri Van Effenterre, edited by H. Van Effenterre, Publications de la Sorbonne; Histoire ancienne et médiévale 15, pp. 353–377. Paris: Centre National des Lettres, 1984.Find this resource:
Meyer, Paul M. B. Das Heerwesen der Ptolemäer und Römer in Ägypten. Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von B.G. Teubner, 1900.Find this resource:
Monson, Andrew. “Late Ptolemaic Capitation Taxes and the Poll Tax in Roman Egypt.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists (forthcoming).Find this resource:
Mooren, Leon. The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography. Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1975.Find this resource:
Mooren, Leon. La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque: contribution à l’étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à l’époque hellénistique. Leuven: Peeters, 1977.Find this resource:
Mueller, Katja. Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World. Leuven: Peeters, 2006.Find this resource:
Oetjen, Roland. “Antigonid Cleruchs in Thessaly and Greece: Philip V and Larisa.” In Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy, edited by G. Reger, F. X. Ryan, and T. F. Winters, pp. 237–253. Bordeaux: Ausonius, 2010.Find this resource:
Olivier, Julien, and Lorber, Catharine. “Three Gold Coinages of Third-Century Ptolemaic Egypt.” Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sillographie 159 (2013): 49–150.Find this resource:
Paganini, Mario C. D. “The Invention of the Gymnasiarch in Rural Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie. Genève, 16-21 août 2010, edited by P. Schubert, pp. 591–597. Geneva, 2012.Find this resource:
“Égyptiens et étrangers dans l’armée de terre et dans la police de l’Égypte ptolémaïque.” Ancient Society 3 (1972): 67–76.Find this resource:
Peremans, Willy. “Un groupe d’officiers dans l’armée des Lagides.” Ancient Society 8 (1977): 175–185.Find this resource:
Peremans, Willy, and Van ‘t Dack, E. Prosopographia Ptolemaica. Leuven: Peeters, 1950–1981.Find this resource:
Ricketts, Linda Maurine. “The Epistrategos Kallimachos and a Koptite inscription: SB V 8036 reconsidered.” Ancient Society 13–14 (1982–3): 161–165.Find this resource:
Rigsby, Kent J. “A Jewish Asylum in Greco-Roman Egypt.” In Das antike Asyl: kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion, edited by M. Dreher, Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 15, pp. 127–141. Cologne, 2003.Find this resource:
Rodriguez, Philippe. “Les Égyptiens dans l’armée de terre ptolémaïque (Diodore, XIX, 80, 4).” Revue des Etudes Grecques 117 (2004): 104–124.Find this resource:
Rowlandson, Jane. “The Character of Ptolemaic Aristocracy. Problems of Definition and Evidence.” In Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, edited by T. Rajak, S. Pearce and J. Aitken, Hellenistic Culture and Society 50, pp. 29–49. London, 2007.Find this resource:
Sänger, Patrick. “The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.): A Form of Organisation to Integrate Minorities.” In Migration und Integration—Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven aus Österreich, edited by J. Dahlvik, C. Reinprecht, and S. Wiebke, pp. 51–68. Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2013.Find this resource:
Scheidel, Walter. “From the ‘Great Convergence’ to the ‘First Great Divergence’: Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and Its Aftermath.” In Rome and China. Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires, edited by W. Scheidel, pp. 11–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Find this resource:
Scheuble, Sandra. “Bemerkungen zu den μισθοφόροι und τακτόμισθοι im ptolemäischen Ägypten.” In “… vor dem Papyrus sind alle gleich!” Papyrologische Beiträge zu Ehren von Bärbel Kramer (P. Kramer) = ArchPF. Beiheft 27, edited by R. Eberhard, et al., pp. 213–222. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009.Find this resource:
Scheuble, Sandra. “Griechen und Ägypter im ptolemäischen Heer—Bemerkungen zum Phänomen der Doppelnamen im ptolemäischen Ägypten.” In Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt. Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts = Philippika, edited by R. Rollinger, et al., pp. 551–560. Wiesbaden, 2010.Find this resource:
Scheuble-Reiter, Sandra. Die Katökenreiter im ptolemäischen Ägypten. Munich: Beck, 2012.Find this resource:
Scheuble-Reiter, Sandra. “Die Organisation und Rolle der Reiterei in den Diadochenheeren—Vom Heer Alexanders des Grossen zum Heer Ptolemaios’ I.” In The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 B.C.), edited by H. Hauben and A. Meus. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.Find this resource:
Schuler, Christof. Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien. Munich: Beck, 1998.Find this resource:
Schuler, Christof. “Kolonisten und Einheimische in einer attalidischen Polisgründung.” Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 128 (1999): 124–132.Find this resource:
Sekunda, Nick. Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160’s BC. Lodz: Oficyna Naukowa, 2001.Find this resource:
Sekunda, Nick. “Military Forces. A. Land Forces.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, edited by P. A. G. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby, pp. 325–357. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Find this resource:
Sekunda, Nick. “The Ptolemaic Guard Cavalry Regiment.” Anabasis 3 (2012): 93–108.Find this resource:
Sosin, Joshua D., Bagnall Roger S., Cowey, James, et al. Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets. Durham, NC: Duke University, 2014. Available at http://papyri.info/docs/checklistFind this resource:
Stefanou, Mary. “Η εθνικὴ των πτολεμαϊκών κληρούχων εως 146 Π.Χ.” Unpublished Masters Thesis, Athens (2008).Find this resource:
Stefanou, Mary. “Waterborne recruits: the military settlers of Ptolemaic Egypt.” In The Ptolemies and the Sea, edited by K. Buraselis, M. Stefanou, and D. Thompson, pp. 108–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.Find this resource:
Strassler, Robert B., and Purvis, Andrea L. The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. New York: Pantheon Books, 2007.Find this resource:
Suto, Yoshiyuki. “Texts and Local Politics in the Chora of Ptolemaic Egypt: The Case of OGIS 94.” SITES. Journal of Studies for Integrated Text Science 1 (2003): 1–12.Find this resource:
Thomas, J. David. The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1975.Find this resource:
Thompson, Dorothy J. “The Idumaeans of Memphis and the Ptolemaic Politeumata.” In Atti del XVII Congresso internazionale di papirologia. Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983, edited by M. Manfredi, 3, pp. 1069–1075. Napoli: Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984.Find this resource:
Thompson, Dorothy J. “Language and Literacy in Early Hellenistic Egypt.” In Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, edited by P. Bilde, pp. 39–52. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992.Find this resource:
Thompson, Dorothy J. “The Exceptionality of the Early Ptolemaic Fayyum.” In New Archaeological and Papyrological Researches on the Fayyum, Proceedings of the International Meeting of Egyptology and Papyrology, Lecce, June 8th–10th 2005 = “Papyrologica Lupiensia” 14 (2005), pp. 305–310. Lecce: Centro di Studi Papirologici dell’Università degli Studi di Lecce, 2007.Find this resource:
Thompson, Dorothy J. “The Sons of Ptolemy V in a Post-secession World.” In Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist und äusserem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII. Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 16.–19.9.2007, edited by A. Jordens and J. F. Quack, pp. 10–23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011a.Find this resource:
Thompson, Dorothy J. “Animal Husbandry in Ptolemaic Egypt.” In The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC, edited by Z. H. Archibald, J. K. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen, pp. 390–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011b.Find this resource:
Thompson, Dorothy J. “Slavery in the Hellenistic World.” In Cambridge History of Slavery, edited by P. Cartledge and K. Bradley, pp. 194–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011c.Find this resource:
Uebel, Fritz. Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968.Find this resource:
Van ‘t Dack, Edmond. “Sur l’évolution des institutions militaires lagides.” In Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique. Actes du colloque national, Paris, 14–16 Octobre 1976, Colloques nationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 936, pp. 77–105. Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1977.Find this resource:
Van ‘t Dack, Edmond. Ptolemaica selecta: Études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides. Leuven: Peeters, 1988a.Find this resource:
Van ‘t Dack, Edmond. “La littérature tactique de l’Antiquité et les sources documentaires.” In Ptolemaica Selecta. Études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides, edited by E. Van ‘t Dack, Studia Hellenistica 29, pp. 47–64. Leuven: Peeters, 1988b.Find this resource:
Van ‘t Dack, Edmond, and Hauben, Hans. “L’apport égyptien à l’armée navale lagide.” In Das Ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des Internationalen Symposions. Berlin, 27.-29. September 1976, edited by H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka, pp. 59–93. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1978.Find this resource:
Van ‘t Dack, Edmond, Clarysse, Willy, Cohen, Getzel M., et al. The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 B.C.: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres.” Brussels, 1989.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn. “City of Many a Gate, Harbour for Many a Rebel. Historical and Topographical Outline of Greco-Roman Thebes.” In Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period, edited by S. P. Vleeming, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27, pp. 203–239. Leiden: Brill, 1995.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn. “Apollonia, a Businesswoman in a Multicultural Society (Pathyris, 2nd–1st centuries B.C.).” In Le rôle et le statut de la femme en Egypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine: acts du colloque international, Bruxelles-Leuven, 27–29 Novembre 1997, edited by H. Melaerts and L. Mooren, Studia Hellenistica 37, pp. 325–336. Leuven: Peeters, 2002a.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn. The Bilingual Family Archive of Dryton, His Wife Apollonia and Their Daughter Senmouthis (P. Dryton). Brussels: Koninkljke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 2002b.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn. “Persian Soldiers and Persians of the Epigone. Social Mobility of Soldiers-Herdsmen in Upper Egypt.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 54 (2008): 87–108.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn. “Archives and dossiers.” In The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, edited by R. S. Bagnall, pp. 216–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn. “The Ptolemaic Army in Upper Egypt (2nd–1st centuries B.C.).” In L’armée en Égypte aux époques perse, ptolémaïque et romaine, edited by A.-E. Véïsse and S. Wackenier, pp. 107–138. Genève: Droz, 2014.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn, and Clarysse, W. “Viticulture and Wine Consumption in the Arsinoite Nome (P. Köln V 221).” Ancient Society 28 (1997): 67–73.Find this resource:
Vandorpe, Katelijn, and Waebens, Sofie. Reconstructing Pathyris’ Archives. A Multicultural Community in Hellenistic Egypt. Brussels: Koninkljke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 2009.Find this resource:
Véïsse, Anne-Emmanuelle. Les “révoltes Égyptiennes”: recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Egypte du règne de Ptolémée III Evergète à la conquête romaine. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.Find this resource:
Vleeming, S. P. “The Reading of the Title ‘Man Receiving Pay.’” In Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte, edited by P. W. Pestman, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 23, pp. 204–207. Leiden, 1985.Find this resource:
Winnicki, Jan Krzysztof. Ptolemäerarmee in Thebais. Wroclaw: Zakliad narodowy imienia Ossolinskich, 1978.Find this resource:
Winnicki, Jan Krzysztof. “Die Ägypter und das Ptolemäerheer.” Aegyptus 65 (1985): 41–55.Find this resource:
Winnicki, Jan Krzysztof. “Die Belohnung von Soldaten für die Feldzugsteilnahme im Ptolemäerreich.” In Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo, 2–9 September 1989, edited by A. H. S. El-Mosalamy, 2, pp. 435–447. Cairo: Ain Shams University, Center of Papyrological Studies, 1992.Find this resource:
Winnicki, Jan Krzysztof. “Die letzten Ereignisse des vierten syrischen Krieges. Eine Neudeutung des Raphiadekrets.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 31 (2001a): 133–145.Find this resource:
Winnicki, Jan Krzysztof. “Zur Deutung des demotischen Papyrus Erbach.” In Punica, Libyca, Ptolemaica: Festschrift für Werner Huss zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, edited by K. Geus and K. Zimmermann, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 104; Studia Phoenicia 16, pp. 311–321. Leuven: Peeters, 2001b.Find this resource:
Zucker, Friedrich. Doppelinschrift spätptolemäischer Zeit aus der Garnison von Hermopolis magna. Berlin: Akademie der wissenschaften, 1938.Find this resource:
(1) All following dates are given in BCE. The footnotes often refer to the most recent studies for further up-to-date bibliography.
(2) Guy T. Griffith, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935); Angelos Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005). The work of Marcel Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris: De Boccard, 1949), was the most exhaustive collection of sources available at the time, although his views of non-Greeks are overtly racist.
(3) For an introduction to papyri as historical sources, their distribution over place and time, and the problem of representativeness, see Roger S. Bagnall, Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History (London: Routledge, 1995) and Roger S. Bagnall, The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). The references to papyri are abbreviated according to Joshua D. Sosin et al., Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (Duke University, 2014), available at http://papyri.info/docs/checklist.
(4) Paul M. B. Meyer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemäer und Römer in Ägypten (Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von B.G. Teubner, 1900); Jean Lesquier, Les institutions militaires de l’Egypte sous les Lagides (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1911); Fritz Uebel, Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968); Sandra Scheuble-Reiter, Die Katökenreiter im ptolemäischen Ägypten (Munich: Beck, 2012).
(5) Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, “Die Ägypter und das Ptolemäerheer,” Aegyptus 65 (1985): 41–55; Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, “Die letzten Ereignisse des vierten syrischen Krieges. Eine Neudeutung des Raphiadekrets,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 31 (2001a): 133–145; Willy Clarysse, “Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic Army and Administration,” Aegyptus 65 (1985): 57–66. See also the earliest work of Peremans, e.g., Willy Peremans, “Égyptiens et étrangers dans l’armée de terre et dans la police de l’Égypte ptolémaïque,” Ancient Society 3 (1972): 67–76; and Willy Peremans, “Un groupe d’officiers dans l’armée des Lagides,” Ancient Society 8 (1977): 175–185. For bilingual archives, see esp. Ernst Boswinkel and Pieter W. Pestman, Les archives privées de Dionysios, fils de Kephalas. Textes grecs et démotiques (Leiden, 1982) and Katelijn Vandorpe, The Bilingual Family Archive of Dryton, his Wife Apollonia and their Daughter Senmouthis (P. Dryton) (Brussels: Koninkljke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 2002b), with Katelijn Vandorpe, “Archives and dossiers,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
(6) Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).
(7) Nick Sekunda, Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160’s BC (Lodz: Oficyna Naukowa, 2001); Willy Peremans and E. Van ‘t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica (Leuven: Peeters, 1950–1981). Many of Van’ t Dack’s articles on the development of the military institutions have been collected in Edmond Van ‘t Dack, Ptolemaica selecta: Études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides (Leuven: Peeters, 1988a). See also now Katelijn Vandorpe, “The Ptolemaic army in Upper Egypt (2nd–1st centuries B.C.),” in L’armée en Égypte aux époques perse, ptolémaïque et romaine (Genève: Droz, 2014).
(8) Large multiethnic armies, such as the Achaemenid army described by Herodotus (7.59–100), are considered difficult to coordinate: John W. I. Lee, “Appendix O. The Persian army in Herodotus,” in The Landmark Herodotus: the Histories (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007): 806 stresses that the Greeks, especially the Ionians, employed by the Persian king were at times reluctant to fight. Damien Agut-Labordère, “Les frontières intérieures de la société militaire égyptienne: l’invasion de l’Egypte par Artaxerxes III à travers Diodore XVI 46. 4–51. 3,” Transeuphratène 35 (2008): 17–27 shows that tensions within the multiethnic army of the Egyptian king Nectanebo II, composed of Egyptian soldiers and of Greek and Libyan mercenaries, led to their defeat in 343 by the Persian king Artaxerxes III.
(9) Walter Scheidel, “From the ‘Great Convergence’ to the ‘First Great Divergence’: Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and Its Aftermath,” in Rome and China. Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), esp. 16, on the consequences of symmetric and asymmetric warfare in Han China and the Roman Republic.
(10) For a historical narrative of the Ptolemaic kingdom and sources, see Günther Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (New York: Routledge, 2001) and Werner Huss, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v. Chr. (Munich: Beck, 2001).
(11) On the construction of the army under Ptolemy I, see Scheuble-Reiter, Die Katökenreiter im ptolemäischen Ägypten, 16–21 and Fischer-Bovet, Army, 52–55. Roger S. Bagnall, “The Origins of Ptolemaic Cleruchs,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrology 21 (1984): 7–20, 16–18 and Mary Stefanou, “Waterborne Recruits: The Military Settlers of Ptolemaic Egypt,” in The Ptolemies and the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 121–123 summarize the divergent opinions on the possibility that Ptolemy left Babylon with troops.
(12) Diodorus 18.14.1; for Alexander’s organization of Egypt, see Arrian, Anabasis 3.5.5; Curtius 4.8.4–5.
(13) On Perdiccas’ invasion, see Diodorus 18.21.7–9, 18.33–36; on Demetrius’ invasion, see Diodorus 20.75.1–3, 76.7; Plutarch 19.1–3; Pausanias 1.6.6.
(14) Diodorus 19.80.4, 84.1–4, 85.3; Plutarch, Demetrius 5; Justin, Epitome 15.1.
(15) On the fleet, see Edmond Van ‘t Dack and Hans Hauben, “L’apport égyptien à l’armée navale lagide,” in Das Ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des Internationalen Symposions. Berlin, 27.–29. September 1976 (Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern, 1978) and Stefanou, Waterborne recruits, on the cost of the army, see Fischer-Bovet, Army, 71–75.
(16) This is one of the best descriptions of a naval battle in the Hellenistic period. See esp. Diodorus 20.46.5–52, with a detailed analysis by Hans Hauben, “Fleet Strength at the Battle of Salamis (306 B.C.),” Chiron 6 (1976): 1–5.
(17) Polybius 5.34.8; Roger S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1976) is still the best comprehensive study of the external possessions. A short survey is found in Andrew Meadows, “Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt,” in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (New York: Wiley, 2012).
(18) For Upper Egypt, see Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, Ptolemäerarmee in Thebais (Wroclaw: Zakliad narodowy imienia Ossolinskich, 1978), with Vandorpe, Army in Upper Egypt, for an evaluation of the number of troops there; for a list in the third century, see Fischer-Bovet, Army, 261–263, with Map 2.
(19) For an example of local conflicts between two Egyptian neighboring cities, Pathyris and Hermonthis, where local troops supported opposing members within the dynasty in the second century, see Edmond Van ‘t Dack et al., The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 B.C.: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres” (Brussels, 1989): 43–45.
(20) Christelle Fischer-Bovet, “Egyptian Warriors: The Machimoi of Herodotus and the Ptolemaic Army,” Classical Quarterly 63 (2013): 209–236, 222–223; on tax collection, see P.Tebt. I 121, with Andrew Monson, “Late Ptolemaic Capitation Taxes and the Poll Tax in Roman Egypt,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 51 (2014): 127–160, 134.
(21) See Nick Sekunda, “Military Forces. A. Land Forces,” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): 343 and Sandra Scheuble, “Bemerkungen zu den μισθοφόροι und τακτόμισθοι im ptolemäischen Ägypten,” in. ”… vor dem Papyrus sind alle gleich!” Papyrologische Beiträge zu Ehren von Bärbel Kramer (P. Kramer) = ArchPF. Beiheft 27 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009): 213 for the variety of terms.
(23) The most detailed list is Uebel, Kleruchen, now updated by Mary Stefanou, “Η εθνικὴ των πτολεμαϊκών κληρούχων εως 146 Π.Χ,” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Athens (2008), whose results are synthesized in Stefanou, Waterborne recruits.
(24) Fischer-Bovet, Machimoi, esp. 221–222 (1 aroura = 2,556 square meters, i.e., approximately half of a soccer field); Dorothy J. Crawford, Kerkeosiris: An Egyptian village in the Ptolemaic period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) estimated that a family could live on 5 arouras; see P.Tebt. I 56 (Kerkeosiris, late second century BC). Even if the annual yield of one aroura was lower than 10 artabas (= ca. 400 liters), e.g., 8.8 artabas on average in P.Tebt. I 49 (Kerkeosiris, 113 BC), the nutritional needs of women and children were lower than 400 liters per year.
(25) On settlers in the Hellenistic world, see Christof Schuler, Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien (Munich: Beck, 1998). For the Seleucid empire, see Getzel M. Cohen, “Katoikiai, Katoikioi and Macedonians in Asia Minor,” Ancient Society 22 (1991): 41–50; Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); G. G. Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy: the Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004): 194–197, 201, note 38. Contra Bezalel Bar-Kochva, The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976): 59–62; for the Antigonids, see Roland Oetjen, “Antigonid cleruchs in Thessaly and Greece: Philip V and Larisa,” in Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy (Bordeaux: Ausonius, 2010); for the Attalids, see Christof Schuler, “Kolonisten und Einheimische in einer attalidischen Polisgründung,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 128 (1999): 124–132.
(27) On Galatians, Pausanias 1.7.2; Callimachus 4.185–7; on mutinies after Raphia, see Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, “Die letzten Ereignisse des vierten syrischen Krieges. Eine Neudeutung des Raphiadekrets,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 31 (2001): 133–145.
(28) Polybius 5. 61.1–3 and 5.70.10–11; Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, “Die Belohnung von Soldaten für die Feldzugsteilnahme im Ptolemäerreich,” in Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo, 2–9 September 1989 (Cairo: Ain Shams University, Center of Papyrological Studies, 1992): 140–141.
(29) See the Rosetta stone regarding Ptolemy V’s decisions: “and he has ordered further that those soldiers (machimoi) who come back, and the others who were rebellious during the period of disturbances, should return and keep possession of their own property,” translation in Michel M. Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) #283, l. 20. The machimoi should be understood as “fighting men,” the translation of rmṯ-qnqn in the Demotic section of the text, and can include other types of soldiers than those cleruchs with five arouras called machimoi in the papyri.
(34) Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 19–23, e.g., Alketas, “of the prisoners from Asia” (tôn apo tês [A]sias aichmalôtôn), a war prisoner who received a klêros after the Second Syrian War, as Uebel, Kleruchen, no. 333, note 3 had suggested, and not after the Third Syrian War.
(35) Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 117–118 and Stefanou, Waterborne Recruits, 130. In addition, men may have emigrated from Macedonia when the political situation was unstable there in the 270s; see Christelle Fischer-Bovet, “Counting the Greeks in Egypt: Immigration in the First Century of Ptolemaic Rule,” in Demography in the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2011): 143. For cleruchs from Pella and Amphipolis after the mid-third century and for Macedonian mercenaries, see Stefanou, Waterborne Recruits, 120, with notes 19 and 20, and perhaps also E1493 in La’da, Prosopographia X who is an uncertain case (mercenary of misthophoroi, see Uebel, Kleruchen, no. 787). Stefanou also suggests that Macedonians whom Alexander and his successors settled in Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine could be recruited by the Ptolemies throughout the third century.
(36) Stefanou, Waterborne Recruits, esp. 120, is however correct that more documents were preserved from the period from the beginning of the dynasty to 246 (2,240) than from 246 to 204 (1,594), although the high number for the first half of the third century is due to the high number of documents from a single archive (Zenon).
(43) For instance, Agathocles sent the Aetolian Scopas to Aetolia and throughout Greece to recruit soldiers at the beginning of Ptolemy V’s reign (Polybius 15.25.17). On the usefulness of the philoi, see Jane Rowlandson, “The Character of Ptolemaic Aristocracy. Problems of Definition and Evidence,” in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (London, 2007): 35–40, esp. 37.
(44) A view shared both by Bagnall, Ptolemaic Cleruchs, 16 and Stefanou, Waterborne Recruits, 129. The data for studying the origin of third century misthophoroi is problematic, since there are only a few misthophoroi whose ethnic is preserved. If one looks at misthophoroi abroad, Prosopographia Ptolemaica, volume VI (15276–15711), they unsurprisingly come from the same area as the main sources (Sidon, Samos, Cyprus, North Syria), as noted by Bagnall, Ptolemaic Cleruchs, 16.
(45) Csaba A La’da, “Ethnicity, occupation and tax-status in Ptolemaic Egypt,” Egitto e vicino Oriente 17 (1994): 183–189 and Katelijn Vandorpe, “Persian Soldiers and Persians of the Epigone. Social Mobility of Soldiers-Herdsmen in Upper Egypt,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 54 (2008): 87–108; Stefanou, Waterborne Recruits, 123–124 downplays the extent to which the ethnic Macedonian was a pseudo-ethnic, whereas Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 118 suggests it was only used as such in the second century. The situation is more complex, since descendants of third century cleruchs continued using it (see Scheuble-Reiter’s diagram 4.1) and since new soldiers were granted this ethnic (e.g., Dionysios son of Kephalas, as noted in La’da, Prosopographia X, E519).
(47) For the decree of the Idumaean saber-bearers (machairophoroi) in Memphis, see OGIS II 737 = SB V 8929 = I.Prose 25 (112 BCE), with Dorothy J. Thompson, “The Idumaeans of Memphis and the Ptolemaic Politeumata,” in Atti del XVII Congresso internazionale di papirologia. Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983 (Napoli: Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 1984) and first century BC inscriptions from the garrisons in Hermopolis (I. Herm. 5 = SB I 4206 and I. Herm. 6 = SB V 8066). For Jews in Leontopolis, see Kent J. Rigsby, “A Jewish asylum in Greco-Roman Egypt,” in Das antike Asyl: kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion (Cologne, 2003).
(49) Diodorus 20.80.4, with Philippe Rodriguez, “Les Égyptiens dans l’armée de terre ptolémaïque (Diodore, XIX, 80, 4),” Revue des Etudes Grecques 117 (2004): 104–124 112–113, 116–118. The accounts of the battles by Plutarch, Demetrius 5 and Justin 15.1 are succinct and do not describe the Ptolemaic army.
(50) Pausanias 3.5.6; Van ‘t Dack and Hauben, ‘L’apport égyptien à l’armée navale lagide.’
(54) Sandra Scheuble-Reiter, “Die Organisation und Rolle der Reiterei in den Diadochenheeren—Vom Heer Alexanders des Grossen zum Heer Ptolemaios’ I,” in The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 B.C.) (Leuven: Peeters, 2014): 477–478.
(55) Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 238–240 proposes that the term strateuomenos in P. Rev. col. 24, l. 4–10 about cleruchs liable for a lower rate on the apomoira, is not limited to soldiers on campaign but implies that they are in training in a garrison far away from their klêros.
(58) In a tax-list from the Fayyum, they were around 400; see P. Count. 1 (254–231 BC) with Dorothy J. Thompson, “The Exceptionality of the Early Ptolemaic Fayyum,” in New Archaeological and Papyrological Researches on the Fayyum, Proceedings of the International Meeting of Egyptology and Papyrology, Lecce, June 8th–10th 2005 = “Papyrologica Lupiensia” 14 (2005) (Lecce: Centro di Studi Papirologici dell’Università degli Studi di Lecce, 2007): 309–310. Thirty-two misthophoroi of the cavalry are recorded with an ethnic for the third and second centuries BCE, from Macedonia, various regions of Greece, Asia Minor, and Cyrenaica, see PP II/VIII.
(60) Edmond Van ‘t Dack, “La littérature tactique de l’Antiquité et les sources documentaires,” in Ptolemaica Selecta. Études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides (Leuven: Peeters, 1988b) Only the basilikê ilê is attested in the papyri, as noted in Scheuble-Reiter, Organization, 485–489.
(62) Uebel, Kleruchen, 397; Bärbel Kramer, Griechische Texte XIII: das Vertragsregister von Theogenis (P. Vindob. G 40618) (Vienna: Verlag Brüder Hollinek, 1991) 79; Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 62–69.
(63) For equipment and weapons, see Nick Sekunda, “The Ptolemaic Guard Cavalry Regiment,” Anabasis 3 (2012): 93–108; Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter 95–111; Fischer-Bovet, Army, 128–131, with further bibliography.
(64) Thus, one fourth of the cavalry cleruchs—or even more—were left in garrisons or unable to fight. Such a large proportion remains unexplained.
(65) CPR XVIII 15, ll. 298–9 and CPR XVIII 10, l. 197. The date of 231 has been contested and supported again, as argued by Christelle Fischer-Bovet and Willy Clarysse, “Silver and bronze standards and the date of P. Heid. VI 383,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 58 (2012b): 26–35, 39.
(66) For example, Diphilos, a Thracian of the hipparchy of the Thessalians and other Greeks, in 232/1 BC (CPR XVIII 10, l. 197). For more examples, see Uebel, Kleruchen, 351, n. 5; Launey, Recherches, 220–221; Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 66, note 53; Fischer-Bovet, Army, 127.
(67) Ahmed Abd El-Fattah, Mohamed Abd El-Maksoud and Jean-Yves Carrez-Maratray, “Deux inscriptions grecques du Boubasteion d’Alexandrie,” Ancient Society 44 (2014): 149–177 ; Willy Clarysse and Dorothy J. Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), vol. II 159, suggest that, during this period, the Persians could be descendants of Greeks who settled in Egypt before Alexander’s conquest. On court titles, see Leon Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1975) and Leon Mooren, La hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque: contribution à l’étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à l’époque hellénistique (Leuven: Peeters, 1977).
(68) Abd El-Fattah, Abd El-Maksoud and Carrez-Maratray, Boubasteion d’Alexandrie, suggest that the inscription dates to the end of his reign (ca. 205), since Megamedes is the first individual known with an honorific a court title under Ptolemy IV. In my opinion, it remains possible that they fought together at Raphia but honored their commander later in his career, plausibly when he received his court title.
(69) As the editors acknowledge, the possibility that they were cleruchs, had become cleruchs, or were a combination of mercenaries and cleruchs still stands.
(70) See the Idumean machairophoroi in Memphis (OGIS II 737, see note 47) and a first century association (sunodos) of machairophoroi at the court, in BGU IV 1190 and I.Fayoum I 17, with Launey, Recherches, vol. II 794, note 3 and 1024.
(71) On Hellenistic mercenaries as semiheavy infantry, see Eric Foulon, “ΜΙΣΘΟΦΟΡΟΙ et ΞΕΝΟΙ hellénistiques,” Revue des Etudes Grecques 108 (1995): 211–218, 214–217.
(72) Bar-Kochva, The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns: 132 considers them as semiheavy infantry at Raphia; on Thracians, see Launey, Recherches, 366–398 and on Thracian katoikoi hippeis, see Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 130–134; on Gauls/Galatians, see Launey, Recherches 491–534, Silvia Barbantani, Phatis nikephoros: Frammenti di elegia encomiastica nell’età delle guerre galatiche. Supplementum Hellenisticum 958 e 969 (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 2001): 188–223; Sekunda, Military forces, 341; Luc Baray, Les mercenaires celtes en Europe et en Méditerranée occidentale et orientale (Ve–Ier siècle avant J.-C.). La question de leur reconnaissance archéologique (Dijon, 2014).
(73) There were Egyptians in other sections of the royal guard, including the bodyguards of Ptolemy II, as in lines 14–15 of the Mendes stela (I.Cairo 22181), whose translation has been debated, with the last translation by David Klotz, “The statue of the dioikêtês Harchebi/Archibios. Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 47–112,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 109 (2009): 281–310. On Hellenistic peltasts and royal (infantry) guards, see Eric Foulon, “Hypaspistes, peltastes, chrysaspides, argyraspides, chalcaspides,” Revue des Etudes Anciennes 98 (1996a): 53–63 = Eric Foulon, “La garde à pied, corps d’élite de la phalange hellénistique,” Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé 1 (1996b): 17–31 = “Hypaspistes, peltastes, chrysaspides, argyraspides, chalcaspides,” Revue des Etudes Anciennes 98, 53–63.
(74) Fischer-Bovet, Army, 133–138 and Fig. 4.5. At Raphia, the phalanx may have been set in twenty-four lines, instead of sixteen (Polybius 18.30.1) or thirty-two lines, as noted in Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army, 135.
(75) Stefanou, Waterborn Recruits, counts eleven Cretan cleruchs, as noted in Table 7.1. Dryton is the best-known cavalry officer of misthophoroi, as seen in Vandorpe, Dryton archive. See La’da Prosopographia X for a list of those with the ethnic Kres or ethnics of Cretan cities, such as Kydonia or Gortyn.
(77) Moreover, bilingual officers were an economic solution to such an issue. However, multiple languages within an army could amplify tensions in period of negotiations with one employer, as, for example, during the Mercenary War in Carthage, where Polybius suggests that four or five different languages were spoken (1.67.9–10). In contrast, only two languages (Greek and Egyptian) were sufficient to communicate with most of the Ptolemaic soldiers.
(78) Raphia decree, l. 29; translation of the Demotic section in Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. # 276. On the actual coins distributed to soldiers, see Julien Olivier and Catharine Lorber, “Three Gold Coinages of Third-Century Ptolemaic Egypt,” Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sillographie 159 (2013): 49–150, esp. 101–107.
(79) On the revolts, see Anne-Emmanuelle Véïsse, Les “révoltes Égyptiennes”: recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Egypte du règne de Ptolémée III Evergète à la conquête romaine (Leuven: Peeters, 2004) and Brian McGing, “Revolt Egyptian style. Internal opposition to Ptolemaic rule,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 43/2 (1997): 273–314.
(80) Christelle Fischer-Bovet and Willy Clarysse, “A Military Reform before the Battle of Raphia?,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 58 (2012a): 26–35.
(84) OGIS II 731 = SB V 8925; Etienne Bernand, “Laarque,” REG 84 (1971): 342–349. The best documented laarchia is that of Chomenis in Kerkeosiris, which grouped infantry and cavalry machimoi. See Crawford, Kerkeosiris, Table IV, 155–159; Edmond Van ‘t Dack, “Sur l’évolution des institutions militaires lagides,” in Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique. Actes du colloque national, Paris, 14–16 octobre 1976 (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1977): 87 and note 1.
(85) Herodotus (7.87) offers a description of soldiers of Egyptian origin during the Persian war: “on their heads they wore knitted helmets; they carried hollow shields with broad rims, naval spears and large battle-axes. The majority of them wore breastplates and carried huge knives (μαχαίρας),” as translated in Robert B. Strassler and Andrea L. Purvis, The Landmark Herodotus: the Histories (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007). We do not know the equipment of machimoi in the Ptolemaic period, so we can only conjecture that they were semiheavy or light infantry.
(87) Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 65, 71, with note 85. She suggests that, in this case, hipparchies were more organizational than tactical units (although their sub-regiments may have grouped cavalry with different equipment).
(90) This reconstruction is mainly based on three inscriptions of the garrison in Hermopolis (I. Herm. 4 = SB I 599, I. Herm. 5 = SB I 4206, I. Herm. 6 = SB V 8066) in the late second and early first century, analyzed first by Friedrich Zucker, Doppelinschrift spätptolemäischer Zeit aus der Garnison von Hermopolis magna (Berlin: Akademie der wissenschaften, 1938); see now Vandorpe, Army in Upper Egypt, with a detailed discussion of the mercenary soldiers in Upper Egypt and the different types of hêgemones; Fischer-Bovet, Army, Table 4.2 and Fig. 4.11.
(93) J. David Thomas, The epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1975); for the first century and comments on Thomas’s study, see Van ‘t Dack, Ptolemaica Selecta. Études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides,, 288–313 and Linda Maurine Ricketts, “The Epistrategos Kallimachos and a Koptite inscription: SB V 8036 reconsidered,” Ancient Society 13–14 (1982–3): 161–165.
(95) For the delta and Thebes, see P. Erbach with Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, “Zur Deutung des demotischen Papyrus Erbach,” in Punica, Libyca, Ptolemaica: Festschrift für Werner Huss zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen (Leuven: Peeters, 2001b); for the Pathyrite nome, see Katelijn Vandorpe and Sofie Waebens, Reconstructing Pathyris’ archives. A multicultural community in Hellenistic Egypt (Brussels: Koninkljke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, 2009) and Vandorpe, Army in Upper Egypt.
(96) S. P. Vleeming, “The reading of the title ‘man receiving pay,’” in Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte (Leiden, 1985); on the army in Upper Egypt, see Vandorpe, Army in Upper Egypt and Vandorpe and Waebens, Pathyris, 43–46.
(97) Vandorpe, Dryton archive, and Katelijn Vandorpe, “Apollonia, a Businesswoman in a Multicultural Society (Pathyris, 2nd–1st centuries B.C.),” in Le rôle et le statut de la femme en Egypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine: acts du colloque international, Bruxelles-Leuven, 27–29 Novembre 1997 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002a).
(98) Thomas Kruse, “Die Festung in Herakleopolis und der Zwist im Ptolemäerhaus,” in Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist und äusserem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII. Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 16.–19.9.2007 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011), with P. Berlin Ziliacus 1–2 and with James M. S. Cowey, Klaus Maresch and Christopher Barnes, Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154–145 v. Chr.?) (P. Phrur. Diosk.) (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2003); Dorothy J. Thompson, “The Sons of Ptolemy V in a Post-secession World,” in Ägypten zwischen innerem Zwist und äusserem Druck. Die Zeit Ptolemaios’ VI. bis VIII. Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 16.–19.9.2007 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011a): 21. On warships, P.Hamb. I 57, SB XXVI 16698 and P.Phrur.Diosk. 4, Kruse, Festung in Herakleopolis, 262–264, with Bärbel Kramer, “Königseid eines Offiziers aus dem Jahr 152 v.Chr,” in Punica—Libyca—Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huss, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen (Leuven, 2001): 332–342.
(99) Willy Clarysse, “Hakoris, an Egyptian nobleman and his family,” Ancient Society 22 (1991b): 235–243; Yoshiyuki Suto, “Texts and Local Politics in the Chora of Ptolemaic Egypt: The Case of OGIS 94,” SITES. Journal of Studies for Integrated Text Science 1 (2003): 1–12.
(101) For I.Herm. 4, see the onomastic analysis of Peter M. Fraser, “The Ptolemaic Garrison of Hermoupolis Magna,” in Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics = Proceedings of the British Academy 148 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). On the two later inscriptions, I.Herm. 5 and I.Herm. 6, see Zucker, Doppelinschrift; Launey, Recherches, vol. II 1024–1025; Etienne Bernand, Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna et de sa nécropole (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1999), esp. 47–48, on the Apollôniatiai as Idumaeans from Apollonia or as Apollôniastiai, members of an association devoted to the cult of Apollo from Marissa in Idumaea. For a similar group with semitic names, see also P.Giss. I 99, l. 8–18 (second century), with Thompson, Idumaeans, 1021.
(103) A slightly different case is that of a group of “Asiatic” soldiers led by a hêgemôn (P.Tebt. III.1 793, col. IV, l. 15, 19–20). They were settled with klêroi in the Arsinoite and found in the papyri from 218 to 166, as noted in Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter 21–22 and La’da, Prosopographia X, 31, note 14. Therefore, they may be a group of mercenaries from Asia Minor hired for the Fourth Syrian War who became cleruchs afterwards; they may also be the descendants of war prisoners from Asia, i.e from the Seleucid army, as argued in Launey, Recherches, vol. I 535 note 1, Uebel, Kleruchen 117, note 3, Maresch, commentary to P.Köln X 411, fr. 2, l.1; Octave Guéraud, Enteuxeis, requêtes et plaintes adressées au roi d’Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.C (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1931) 134 suggests both possibilities.
(104) Vandorpe, Persian soldiers; Thompson, Sons, 21–23. The last revolt of the Thebaid occurred in 92/1-88, but Pathyris remained loyal, as described in Katelijn Vandorpe, “City of Many a Gate, harbour for many a rebel. Historical and topographical outline of Greco-Roman Thebes,” in Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period (Leiden: Brill, 1995): 233–235.
(105) For attestation in the village of Kerkeosiris, see Crawford, Kerkeosiris, esp. 58–75 for a chronological survey of settlement. For the Edfu nome, see Thorolf Christensen, “P. Haun. Inv. 407 and cleruchs in the Edfu nome,” in Edfu, an Egyptian Provincial Capital in the Ptolemaic Period: Brussels, 3 September 2001 (Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, 2003) and a forthcoming edition of P.Haun.Inv. 407 by Dorothy Thompson and Katelijn Vandorpe.
(106) Crawford, Kerkeosiris, 63, 69; Van ‘t Dack et al., The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 B.C.: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres.”: 116; Sandra Scheuble, “Griechen und Ägypter im ptolemäischen Heer—Bemerkungen zum Phänomen der Doppelnamen im ptolemäischen Ägypten,” in Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt. Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts = Philippika (Wiesbaden, 2010): 552, 557; Fischer-Bovet, Army, 252–255.
(108) Some Egyptian katoikoi hid behind Greek names, as studied in Scheuble, Griechen und Ägypter im ptolemäischen Heer, esp. 552, 557. For the example of an Egyptian katoikos hippeus, note Heti in P.Moscou, published by Michel Malinine, “Partage testamentaire d’une propriété familiale (Pap. Moscou No. 123),” Revue des Etudes Grecques 19 (1967): 67–85.
(109) Willy Clarysse, “Ethnic diversity and dialect among the Greeks of Hellenistic Egypt,” in The Two Faces of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Boston: Brill, 1998): 1. In a series of cleruchs’ wills dated to the reign of Ptolemy III, most witness lists include soldiers with different ethnics and deme identities, ranks, and companies, except Alexandrians, who often appear in groups of two or three, as noted in Willy Clarysse, The Petrie Papyri. Second Edition (P. Petrie2). Vol. I: The Wills (Brussels, 1991a): 42–44.
(110) Clarysse and Thompson, Counting, vol. II, 151; on the Jewish community in Trikomia, see Katja Mueller, Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World (Leuven: Peeters, 2006) 136–138; on group of soldiers belonging to the same ethnic group forming communities, see Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 27–29; on the tendency of immigrants to live together, though not in ghettos, see Clarysse, Ethnic Diversity and Dialect among the Greeks.
(111) See examples in P.Enteux, where cases are often complex, e.g., in P.Enteux. 86 (221 BC), where a 100-aroura man was about to witness for an Egyptian woman against another Greek in a dispute over a house.
(112) I.Fayoum. I 2. For other cases of Greek integration in Egyptian society in the third century, see Willy Clarysse, “Some Greeks in Egypt,” in Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (SAOC 51) (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992).
(113) Mario C. D. Paganini, “The Invention of the Gymnasiarch in Rural Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie. Genève, 16-21 août 2010 (Geneva, 2012) also suggests a Macedonian influence for their rural character. On Greek games taking place there, see SEG XXVII 1114 (267 BC), translated by Austin, Hellenistic World, #294, and Ludwig Koenen, Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemäische Königsfeste (Meisenheim am Glan, 1977). On Greek education in the Egyptian chora, see Dorothy J. Thompson, “Language and Literacy in Early Hellenistic Egypt,” in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992): 48–51.
(114) Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 33–38 and Fischer-Bovet, Army, 239–242; against Jean Bingen, “Présence grecque et milieu rural ptolémaique,” in Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (Paris: Mouton, 1973).
(115) See the analysis of tax-lists by Clarysse and Thompson, Counting the People. vol. II 206–225 and Dorothy J. Thompson, “Animal Husbandry in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011b); Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 251–256. On the largest estates, see Willy Clarysse, “Egyptian estate-holders in the Ptolemaic Period,” in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference (Leuven, 1979).
(116) P. Köln V 221 (190 BC) and Katelijn Vandorpe and Willy Clarysse, “Viticulture and Wine Consumption in the Arsinoite Nome (P. Köln V 221),” Ancient Society 28 (1997): 67–73, esp. 72–73.
(118) See, for example, cleruchs’ wills and tax-lists from third century Fayyum in Clarysse, The Petrie Papyri. Second Edition (P. Petrie2). Vol. I: The Wills. On slaves, see Clarysse and Thompson, Counting the People, vol. II, 62–67 and Dorothy J. Thompson, “Slavery in the Hellenistic World,” in Cambridge History of Slavery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011c): 206–212. On the complicated question of the legal status of the klêroi, see the reassessment of the sources by Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 142–194 and Fischer-Bovet, Army, 225–237.
(119) Scheuble-Reiter, Katökenreiter, 202–203, also considers that the katoikoi did not form a closed economic milieu but stresses a divide between ancient families of katoikoi with large estates and new families with smaller estates.
(120) For example, a loan of wheat from an hekatontarchos. For officers of misthophoroi who became cleruchs, see Boswinkel and Pestman, Archives privées, 54–55. On the possible Libyan origin of Dionysios, since his brother bore the ethnic libus, see Boswinkel and Pestman, Archives privées, 63. On the archive of Dionysios, see also Naphtali Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986): 124–139 and Michel Chauveau, L’Egypte au temps de Cléopâtre: 180–30 av. J.-C. (Paris: Hachette littératures, 1997): 207–213.
(124) On the many family archives and soldier archives in Pathyris, see now Vandorpe and Waebens, Pathyris, with full bibliography, e.g., 163–189 (e.g., on Peteharsemtheus’ archive for another example of a soldier-priest).
(125) An extensive bibliography on Dryton is presented in Vandorpe and Waebens, Pathyris, 102–113, and in Vandorpe, Dryton Archive. He was not a cleruch but a professional soldier, and the land that he owned was not a klêros.
(126) Vandorpe, Apollonia, a Businesswoman, after discussing the debated question of Apollonia’s ethnicity, finally favors an Egyptian origin. See also Vandorpe and Waebens, Pathyris, 106; one of the husbands was a cavalryman, Herienoupis. See Chauveau, L’Egypte au temps de Cléopatre, 216 and Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, “Dryton le Crétois et sa famille ou les mariages mixtes dans l’Égypte hellénistique,” in Aux origines de l’hellénisme. La Crète et la Grèce. Hommage à Henri Van Effenterre (Paris: Centre National des Lettres, 1984).
(128) P.Amh. II 39 and P.Grenf. I 30 (= C.Jud.Syr.Eg. 1, found in Pathyris, 103 BC). See also nine neaniskoi from Krokodilopolis and their officer Apollonios (alias Phabi), who shared an agapê in Hermonthis to celebrate a reconciliation between the two villages, W. Chr. 11A + B, esp. A, l. 46–53, with Bernard Legras, Néotês: recherches sur les jeunes Grecs dans l’Egypte ptolémaïque et romaine (Geneva: Droz, 1999): 202–204 and Wolfgang Habermann, “Gymnasien im ptolemäischen Ägypten—eine Skizze,” in Das hellenistische Gymnasion (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004): 342.
(130) For the Bubasteion, see Abd el-Fattah, Abd El-Maksoud and Carrez-Maratray, Boubasteion d’Alexandrie. For Hermopolis, see I.Herm. 5, l. 2–3 and I.Herm. 6, l. 2–3, “the Apolloniatai-mercenaries in Hermopolis and the founders who share their politeuma (hoi sumpoliteuomenoi ktistai).” On the politeumata, see now Patrick Sänger, “The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century B.C.): A Form of Organisation to Integrate Minorities,” in Migration und Integration—Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven aus Österreich (Vienna: Vienna University Press, 2013) and his forthcoming habilitation thesis.