Issue III.1 is on its way to subscribers, so it's time to prepare another podcast. I emailed all the authors yesterday and got an encouraging response and good proposals for topics to touch upon. I'll post those here and we can continue the discussion in the comments.

Paul Bardunias wrote:

Jasper et al.,

A topic I think could lead to many others would be a discussion of the efficacy of mercenaries.  How were they most useful in comparison to citizen armies, what conditions led to the rise of their usage in the Hellenistic period?  What attributes made certain troop types- archers, slingers, other specialist troops- more likely to be hired than trained?

 

How the rise in professional troops influenced the rise of professional armies.

The support of mercenary troops- who armed them?   Who raised them and transported them?

Why some areas- Crete, Arcadia, etc.- provided so many men as mercenaries.

The sometimes hazy difference between mercenaries and allied contingents. Mercenaries hired as individuals and "mercenaries" hired in groups from polities- as often happened on Crete.

Perhaps a discussion of some famous mercenary strategoi. Conversely some famous commanders of mercenary forces.  The challenge of leading a polyglot band of mercenaries in battle.

Paul

To which Alberto Pérez added:

Hello Paul et al.

Nice to meet you. I find that the orientation that you suggest is very interesting, being the efficiency of mercenary soldiers a perfect starting point to develop then all the rest of the questions you address.

I find extremely interesting the last point, "a discussion of some famous mercenary strategoi. Conversely some famous commanders of mercenary forces.  The challenge of leading a polyglot band of mercenaries in battle." I think we can perhaps discuss the battle of Bagradas and Xantipphus - in fact you Paul have written about in this AW issue, haven’t you- but also Agathocles, Phyrrus, and of course Hannibal, whose ability to maintain a mercenary army for so many years without a single mutiny and almost no desertions is astonishing. Related to this we could discuss the clash between a military system based primarily in mercenaries, as the Carthaginian army, and one based in the conscription of citizens as the Roman one, with the pros and cons of each solution.

I would also suggest speaking about the "mercenary societies" (perhaps not a very fortunate term) that we know from the sources, as the Marmetines, or the mercenary army that Carthage had to face after the end of the First Punic War. These are odd episodes that show mercenaries self-organized, perhaps more to do with large scale brigandage, but very interesting, and that can also be related with another question: the reliability of mercenaries. We find situations were they revolt or betray their employer, but also citizen troops mutiny and betray, at which degree were more reliable one or another? which factors could lead mercenaries to desert or change sides?

Best regards

Alberto

Michael J. Taylor, finally:

I would certainly agree that defining a mercenary is important, especially when it is unclear whether ethnic contingents should be identified as subjects, allies or mercenaries. Also interesting is the phenomenon of mercenary service as a form of immigration, particularly in the Hellenistic kingdoms.

 I also agree that discussing the efficacy of mercenaries as a manpower strategy, compared to deployment of citizen troops, subject levies or allied contingents, would be worthwhile.

Best,

Michael

First thing to do is fix a date, however. How about Saturday February 28th, 10 PM London time?