The emphasis of the evidence for the nature of the Ptolemaic army discussed above was on armies outside Egypt. However, much of the evidence for the army comes from Egypt itself, and relates to two important groups, on the one hand mercenaries and standing troops (misthophoroi), including guard units and units based in garrisons (phrouria) throughout Egypt and, on the other, reservists ( klerouchoi) with a liability to serve when needed, settled on allotments of land by royal authority. Polybios (15.25.17) draws this fundamental distinction.
The distinction between short-term mercenaries and long-service regulars is not always clear, and evidently the Ptolemaic army at certain times included both. Van’t Dack (1977: 90-4) proposed a development, with foreign mercenaries of the traditional kind playing an important role in earlier Ptolemaic armies, substantially replaced by cleruchs (below) through the third century, the cleruchs being supplemented by significant numbers of locally recruited professional troops in the later second century bc. He suggests on the basis of their names that these troops were largely Egyptians or culturally mixed individuals, although, as Clarysse (1985) has pointed out, names employed by individuals in the army and administration may be as much a reflection of context and role as of culture.
Garrisons of regular soldiers were located in great part to ensure royal control of territory against internal revolt, a phenomenon of particular significance in the second and first centuries bc. For example, the end of the great uprising of 207-186 BC in the Thebaid (see Manning 2003b: 164-71) was marked by the establishment of new garrisons at Krokodilopolis and Pathyris (Manning 2003b: 169). Soldiers serving in garrisons appear in the documentary record as a privileged group and as individuals with substantial landholdings (Manning 2003b: 191; Clarysse and Thompson 2006: 148-54 on misthophoroi hippeis in the Arsinoite nome).
The other major group of military men in the Egyptian chora were klerouchoi, military settlers (Uebel 1968; Crawford 1971: 53-84; Van’t Dack 1977: 82-90; Serrata 2007: 472-3). These were colonists established on allotments of royal land to provide a body of reservists for service when required. This practice, with Pharaonic precedents (Herodotos 2.168 with Lloyd 1988: 200; Diodoros 1.73.7-8), had the potential advantages of providing manpower with a personal stake in the kingdom in place of mercenaries; of reinforcing royal control throughout the kingdom; and of promoting the cultivation of marginal land (Crawford 1971: 53-4; Manning 2003a: 56, 117).
In the third century bc, kleruchs were predominantly individuals of GraecoMacedonian origin, settled in particular areas as katoikoi (especially the Fayum, but also the Oxyrhynchite nome of Middle Egypt - although the copious evidence from these areas may distort the picture). A high proportion of these kleruchs were attracted from areas beyond direct Ptolemaic control, including Macedonia (Bagnall 1984: 9). The documentary evidence suggests a third-century preoccupation with establishing a reliable cavalry force for the army, and Clarysse and Thompson (2006, vol. 2: 151-3) estimate, on the basis of mid-third century documents, that the Arsinoite nome alone could have provided about 1,000 kleruchic cavalry and 400 regular cavalry, nearly half the ‘‘native’’ cavalry recorded in the Ptolemaic army at Raphia in 217 bc. Allotments were made according to military rank and status, and typically these kleruch cavalry were (nominally at least) holders of 100 arouras. In the first instance, the land remained crown property, reverting to royal cultivation on call-up or death, but by the end of the third century allotments were being granted to holders and their descendants, and over the next two centuries the inheritance and disposal of cleruchic land became normal. These large allotments often were leased out and cultivated by others (Crawford 1971: 55-57, 76).
With the enhanced importance of Egyptians within the army after Raphia, they too begin to appear as recipients of kleruchic allotments. In contrast to the mid-third century documents studied by Clarysse and Thompson, the latter’s study of the Kerkeosiris land survey documents shows that all the new kleruchic settlers in the period 130-120 bc were Egyptians (at least inasmuch as one can judge from their names), giving rise to the situation in 119-8 bc when there were 63 kleruchic holdings by Egyptians compared to 41 held by foreign cavalry and officials (Crawford 1971: 70-1). Typically these allotments were much smaller than the earlier ones made to cavalry, and typically cultivated by the holders themselves. Crawford (1971: 70) notes that the Kerkeosiris documents record a single 30 aroura grant in 129 bc, seven of 20 arouras (to machimoi hippeis - ‘‘Egyptian’’ cavalry) and thirty of seven arouras (to machimoi, presumably infantry).
Various categories of paramilitary police were stationed in the chora, with titles like phylakitai (‘‘guards’’), ephodoi (‘‘men doing the rounds’’) and eremophylakes (‘‘desert-guards’’). Clarysse and Thompson (2006: vol. 2, 169) estimate that they made up between 1% and 5% of the adult population of the Arsinoite nome in the mid-third century, suggesting a heavily policed society. From the reign of Ptolemy V (205-180 Bc) they began to receive kleruchic allotments of 10 or 24 arouras, reflecting their varied statuses (Clarysse and Thompson 2006: vol. 2, 165-77).
World History
