Macedonian Military Numbers

Discuss the wars of Alexander's successors

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Post by agesilaos » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:29 pm
Xenophon wrote:
I agree we are talking in a general sense - ‘enrol’ could also be used as a generic translation - but in any event, Alexander did not ‘pick up’, ‘enrol’ or ‘enlist’ his Macedonian reinforcements “on the march”. They were enrolled or enlisted in Macedon, and then sent East to Alexander. Linguistically possible or not, it would be a very odd way to refer to Alexander’s Macedonian reinforcements.
In fact the Greek makes it much more likely that the distinction is between those veterans who began the Expedition and those who had joined Alexander later.
Bosworth is slack in his use of ‘enlisted’ and should have said ‘had under his command’ but the Greek is odder if it is read your way it seems; I certainly do not feel qualified enough to dispute the matter with Beloch nor Bosworth.
Fortunately there are many who do feel qualified to dispute Bosworth's interpretation. Bosworth’s argument is hardly convincing, in my view, and of others, and certainly not conclusive. If one accepts that the wording is ambiguous, then you have to explain why the 10,000 veterans are suddenly divided into two groups, (here and nowhere else) for no apparent reason, and that does not make sense. Secondly the context and circumstantial evidence make it unlikely that the reference is to two differentiated groups of Alexander’s veterans. Nor do many scholars, such as Hammond, already referred to, Badian, Billows and others agree with Bosworth’s interpretation of the possibly ambiguous Greek.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

post by agesilaos » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:36 am
For a critique of Luke Ueda-Sarson’s idea that the Phalanx was divided into 2,000 man units readers are invited to review the arguments presented in this existing thread, which is both short and well-mannered
A reminder that Luke’s succinct summary “Macedonian Unit Organisation” can be found here:

http://lukeuedasarson.com/GranicusNotes.html

I thoroughly recommend it to anyone interested in this subject ! It is not just Luke’s idea, though. Many others have realised the unlikelihood if not impossibility of a 1500 man ‘Taxis’ in the Macedonian phalanx, before him. For example, as long ago as the 1970’s I concluded that the phalanx numbered 2,000 (in round figures for much the same reasons as Luke ( see “Warfare in the Classical World” Warry [ Salamander 1980] pp80 and 81 for example) and I’m sure many others before and since.
Unit strengths and organisation

You should also be aware that there only seem to have been seven phalanxes, with the seventh only appearing in the Indian campaign and most likely comprising those reinforcements that were superfluous to the existing territorial units and constituting Curtius' and Diodoros' 'Ataktoi', which should be interpreted as 'unassigned' rather than their fanciful 'ill-disciplined'.
For the evidence that at the end of his reign, Alexander’s phalanx numbered 8x2,000 ‘Taxeis’, see Ueda-Sarson pp 6-7 of 8, which is also the total number referred to in the Hellenistic manuals and elsewhere. I am also well aware that there may have been seven in India, as I have mentioned this earlier. For the purposes of this discussion, I have generally referred to the maximum possible numbers of troops.
7 x 1,500 = 10,500 + 3,000 minus 10,000+ leaves 3,500, so when Perdikkas gives Peithon 3,000 chosen by lot he has only 500 men or if one makes the phalanxes 2,000 he has 4,000 phalangites and 3,000 Argyraspides (any Argyraspides with Krateros having their posts filled by promotion from the phalanx). It will be noted that neither figure supplies enough common phalangites for the 'mixed phalanx' to absorb the 20,000 Orientals (6,700); Arrian is clear that the pikemen in the mixed phalanx are Macedonian and the authority is Aristoboulos, so Bosworth's argument that they included the recently arrived contingents 'trained in the Macedonian manner' ('Legacy' somewhere, have not got it on me ).
So you agree that a phalanx ‘taxis’ numbered more than 1500 ? A revised opinion!

As to the ‘Persians’, nowhere are we told that all 20,000 were incorporated into the phalanx. Assuming 8 taxeis ( the maximum possible), with 12 per file, the maximum that could be incorporated (“...enrolled in the various Macedonian taxeis..”[Arrian VII.23.3] would have been 12,000 and Diodorus [XVII.110.1] tells us :”In this year Alexander secured replacements from the Persians equal to the number of these soldiers whom he had released.” i.e. just 10,000 Persians.In either case it means just 4 -6,000 or so Macedonian phalangites remained with Alexander.
(Incidently, it also tells us the actualMacedonian phalanx was understrength)
If we take the 10,000 plus dischargees and divide by 7, each phalanx lost 1,430 men (either as crocks or by promotion to the Argyraspides); 6,700 divided by seven yields 957, so one might conclude that the phalanxes had swollen to 2,500 by the time the army reached Babylon which is to say they had ten hekatostyes of 256 rather than the six with which they crossed the Hellespont (the building block of the phalanx was the square formation 16 by 16). Thus Perdikkas would have

70 x 256 = 17, 920 minus 10,000 leaving c.7,900 plus 3,000 Argyraspides; 10,900 or more Macedonians explains why Perdikkas could leave a sizeable force of them with Neoptolemos to settle Armenia.
These calculations and assumptions are unsupported by evidence – asserting phalanx ‘taxeis’ of 2,500, solely in order to swell the numbers of Perdiccas’ infantry with no evidence is hardly a logical or reasonable argument, rather on that basis one could insert any number one cares to imagine.

In fact we are told the number of ‘Makedones’ left with Alexander was less than 10,000. Curtius [ X.2.19 ] has Alexander say so: “I am dismissing more than I am intending to retain.” That is consistent with 10,000 ‘Makedones’ returning, and 4-6,000 plus the Hypaspists/Silver Shields 3-4,000 being retained. It also rules out the inflated numbers of your unevidenced assertions.

It is more logical that Perdiccas could afford to give Alcetas and Neoptolemus Macedonian phalangites after he had collected the 4,000 veterans in Cilicia, bringing his total up to 8-10,000 or so plus 3,000 or so Silver Shields.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by amyntoros »

agesilaos wrote: Neoptolemos had already been left in Armenia with his Macedonians who must have been from the Royal army. So nice try but no cigar and no source references to trouble in Kilikia requiring 4-10,000 veterans to supress it. Further indication of the generally peaceful nature of Asia Minor can be gleaned from the fact that both Kyannane and Kleopatra passed through without trouble from the natives.
Xenophon wrote: I didn’t ‘invent’ a rebellion in Cilicia, merely suggested it was a possible and likely reason Craterus and his army remained there so long, when they were keen to get home. Certainly more likely than Craterus supervising ship-building, which couldn’t occur along the rugged Cilician coastline, with its small coves so suitable for pirates to hide in. The nearest decent harbours were in Phoenicia, or far to the west.
From Alexander's Heirs: The Age of the Successors, by Edward M. Anson:
Antipater had a fleet of 110 triremes which was no match for the Athenian navy, and, consequently, it likely joined with the main Macedonian fleet under the command of Cleitus, which presumably had departed for the Hellespont from its base in Cilicia as soon as Antipater's request for assistance had been sent in preparation for Craterus' departure scheduled for the following year. Cleitus had accompanied Craterus from Babylon (Just. 12.12.8 ). His fleet in late 323 numbered 240 vessels (Diod. 18.15.8 ). Its mobilization was already underway before the beginning of the war in Greece, and its formation may have been at least partially responsible for Craterus' initial delay in crossing to Macedonia, while Alexander yet lived. Craterus was preparing a fleet either to attack Athens over the Harpalus affair or in preparation for Alexander's proclaimed western campaign (Diod. 18.4.4; Arr. Anab. 7.1.2; Curt. 10.1.17). Too much emphasis has been put on the supposed delay in responding to Antipater's request for aid. The likelihood is that what is seen as delay is simply the effect of waiting for a clearer picture of events both in Babylon and Greece to emerge, the distance between Cilicia and the Hellespont (approximately 800-900 miles depending on route, or a 50-60 day march), and time for preparation (securing Cilicia and the Hellespont). With Alexander's death and the Babylonian settlement occurring in June, the full knowledge of these events would not have arrived in Cilicia before July. The famous Persian dispatch riders, given that the system described by Herodotus (8.98) was still in operation, would have taken at least ten days to travel from Babylon to Cilicia (Casson 1994: 53). Craterus departure from Cilicia under the best of circumstances would have been delayed until the following spring.
I'm not posting the above in order to divert the thread, I simply wanted to reiterate that there are (here and everywhere else) differing opinions as to certain information and events. Anson's opinion does not rule out Xenophon's suggestion of a "possible" rebellion in Cilicia. It does, in fact, support it somewhat via the statement " ...and time for preparation (securing Cilicia and the Hellespont)." Elsewhere, I'm sure, there are academics whose writings will support the varying views and opinions of Agesilaos and Paralus. If there isn't an understanding that each has a right to their own opinions then this thread will go nowhere. If or when no consensus is reached - and such consensus is not required for debate - and all feel they have nothing more to say then I would like it if each could summarize their views and then give their figures. No one has to agree and no one is right or wrong. I'm not trying to end this debate, btw, but as a thread on "Macedonian Military Numbers' it is very hard to follow. And, yes, that isn't necessarily all that unusual on Pothos, but where numbers are concerned an eventual summary would be nice. Not a requirement - just a request.

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote: If only a few of the dozen or so Diadochi had raised ‘Hypaspists/Guards’ your rationale for assuming that Philip Arrhidaios must have had such vanishes. I re-iterate that no such unit is ever referred to in our sources for this period.
So there was no attested hypaspist / guards unit for Philip II (or Alexander IV) after the Argyraspides supposedly refused to serve an infant and mental incompetent king? You spent a good amount of time arguing that Neoptolemus, as 'archyhypaspist', was the commander of the hypaspists in the years after Alexander's death on another thread - for possibly up to two years. Such a unit can only have been in the royal army and the kings' guard unit. Yet here you argue no such unit ever existed.

I repeat that is is untenable that the king and his court were in Phokis without the army and that they returned without there being an army with them. The scenario I suggested is far more logical. That is, that Alexander is deputed a force necessary for the occasion to carry onto to Athens while the main body traveled on with the regent and the court. Athens was not in revolt but asking for assistance to enforce the diagramma. In fact, Alexander appears to have facillitated the entry of exiles into the city.
Xenophon wrote:I see, so you were not implying that generic ‘regent’ applied to Antipater and Polyperchon as well? The Kings just always accompanied only Perdiccas then ?
I really do not understand your apparent confusion here. What I wrote was plain:
Paralus wrote: If we accept your reasoning that Polyperchon exercising actual command, as regent, is "appropriating a Royal prerogative" as well as being "embarrassing", then one wonders at the sheer effrontery of Perdikkas when he, as regent, took the Royal army into Kappadokia with the kings where he was clearly in command of the lot. More embarrassingly for the kings, Perdikkas then took it to Egypt where he must have actually commanded the Silver Shields. The sources are plain that the kings accompanied the royal army and their regent on these campaigns.
The two campaigns under discussion - "these campaigns" - are Kappadokia and Egypt. The regent leading these campaigns is Perdikkas. The sources are plain that the Kings accompanied Perdikkas on those campaigns. Perdikkas' exercising "actual" command is compared to Polyperchon doing same. Pretty straightforward and simple enough.
Last edited by Paralus on Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

I have said the word ‘retired’, which you keep using, is inappropriate. ‘Retired’ implies they no longer served, and went to their homes, as Holkias’ 3,000 ultimately did, and as the Silver Shields wished to, but were not allowed to. [Justin XIV.3]. These veterans did not ‘retire’ and were never intended to, as I have said. They would replace a similar number of younger, fitter men in Antipater’s army, which troops Antipater was to bring east to Alexander.
These men were therefore intended to be ‘transferred’, or ‘rotated’ but definitely not ‘retired’ ( and see ante for why the ‘Argyraspides’ were not retired either, but continued on in service. Nowhere in our sources does it say they were ‘retired’. In fact Justin XIV.3 has the Argyraspides reproaching Eumenes, because they had not yet been ‘retired/disbanded’) Furthermore they were not given a ‘bonus retirement payment’. The word in Greek has no connotation of ‘retirement payment’. “Epidwsein” means ‘give besides’ (their pay) The L.S.J. defines it broadly as a gift of money, a donative, a gratuity, or on occasion, even a bribe. No reference to ‘retirement’ whatsoever. Arrian uses it five or so times, all in a general sense and never as meaning ‘retirement payment’. This another inappropriate use of ‘retirement’.

In this instance they were offered their arrears of pay, further pay to cover their march home and a Talent by way of gratuity/bonus [Arrian Anabasis VII.12]. An Attic Talent was around 6,000 drachma, with a drachma or so being a day’s pay, IIRC, so they were given over 16 years pay, assuming they actually received it.
Let’s just nail this; instead of expecting a technical word meaning ‘discharge bonus’ one has to look to the verbs used.
Diodoros XVII 110 i
ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων Ἀλέξανδρος εἰς τὸν τῶν ἀπολελυμένων ἀριθμὸν ἀνεπλήρωσεν ἐκ τῶν Περσῶν καὶχιλίους αὐτῶν εἰς τοὺς περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν ἔταξεν ὑπασπιστὰς καὶ τὸ σύνολον οὐχ ἥττους εἰς πίστιν τῶν Μακεδόνων ὑπέλαβεν
In this year Alexander secured replacements from the Persians equal to the number of these soldiers whom he had released, and assigned a thousand of them to the bodyguards stationed at the court. In all respects he showed the same confidence in them as in the Macedonians.
The word translated here as ‘he had released’ is ἀπολελυμένων
LSJ ἀπολύω
III. [select] discharge, disband an army, “ἀ. οἴκαδε” X.HG6.5.21; generally, dismiss, discharge, “ἐμὲ . . ἀπέλυσ᾽ ἄδειπνον” Ar.Ach. 1155, cf. Bion 1.96.
The same word is used in Plutarch Alx. 71.v
τῇ δὲ τρίτῃ προελθὼν καὶ θεασάμενος οἰκτροὺς καὶ τεταπεινωμένους ἐδάκρυε πολὺν χρόνον εἶταμεμψάμενος μέτρια καὶ προσαγορεύσας φιλανθρώπως ἀπέλυσε τοὺς ἀχρήστους δωρησάμενος μεγαλοπρεπῶς,

So on the third day he came forth, and when he saw their piteous and humble plight, wept for some time; then, after chiding them gently and speaking kindly to them, he dismissed those who were past service with magnificent gifts
It is also telling how these discharges are described, τοὺς ἀχρήστους
ἄχρησ-τος , ον,
A.useless, unprofitable, “μετάνοια” Batr.70; “νέες” Hdt.1.166; “ἄ. ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς γίνεται” Hp.Prorrh.2.19; “οὐκ ἄ. ἥδ᾽ ἡ ἄνοια” Th.6.16; χρεομένῳ ἄχρηστα useless if you try to use them, Hp.Art.14; “πεσεῖν ἄ. θέσφατον” without effect, E.IT121; “ἄ. ἐς πόλεμον” Hdt.8.142, Lycurg.53; “πρός τι” Arist.HA560b14: c. gen. rei, “ἄ. τῶν ἔργων” Id.Oec.1345a35; ἄ. τινι useless to a person, Hdt.1.80, cf. X.Oec.8.4 (Sup.); “τῇ πόλει” E.Heracl.4; “τὸ διηπορηκέναι οὐκ ἄ.” Arist.Cat.8b24.
Which brings us to Arrian where those to be dismissed are also described VII 8 I,
συναγαγὼν τοὺς Μακεδόνας προεῖπεν ὅτι τοὺς ὑπὸ γήρως ἢ πηρώσεως τοῦ σώματος ἀχρείους ἐς τὰ πολέμια ὄντας παραλύει μὲν τῆς στρατιᾶς

he collected the Macedonians and announced that he intended to discharge from the army those who were useless for military service either from age or from being maimed in the limbs;
παραλύω [v. λύω] :
II. [select] c. acc. pers. et gen. rei, part from, “πολλοὺς ἤδη παρέλυσεν θάνατος δάμαρτος” E.Alc.932 (lyr., dub.l.) ; μία γάρ σφεων παρελύθηὑπὸ Ἰώνων one city (Smyrna) was detached from them, Hdt.1.149 ; π. τινὰ τῆς στρατιῆς release from military service, Id.7.38 (and in Pass., to be exempt from it, 5.75), cf. Plb.6.33.10 ; “τοῦ ὅρκου” OGI266.46 (Pergam., iii B.C.) ; π. τινὰ δυσφρονᾶν set free from cares, Pi.O.2.52 ; π. τινὰ τῆςστρατηγίης dismiss from the command, Hdt.6.94, cf. Th.7.16, 8.54 ; “τῆς δυνάμεως τινά” Arist.Pol.1315a12 (so in Pass., “π. τῆς φυλακῆς” Plu.Cleom.37 ; “τῆς ἀρχῆς” Eun.VSp.481 B.) ; also τὴν ἀρχήν τινι π. ib. p.479 B.; τοὺς Ἀθηναίους π. τῆς ἐς αὐτὸν ὀργῆς set them free, release themfrom . . , Th. 2.65 ; “φαρμάκῳ π. ἑαυτὸν τοῦ ζῆν” Str.8.6.14 ; “παραλελύσθαι τοῦ φόβου” Plb.30.4.7 : c. acc. only, set free, “δυστάνου ψυχάν”E.Alc. 117 (lyr.) :—Med., obtain leave of absence from, “τοὺς παιδονόμους” SIG577.56 (Milet., iii/ii B.C.).
So the men being discharged are ‘not fit for duty’.
Arrian VII 12 i
THEN those of the Macedonians who were unfit for service on account of age or any other misfortune went back of their own accord, to the number of about 10,000. To these Alexander gave the pay not only for the time which had already elapsed, but also for that which they would take in returning home. He also gave to each man a talent in addition to his pay.
ἔνθα δὴ ἐθελονταὶ ἤδη αὐτῷ ἀπῄεσαν τῶν Μακεδόνων ὅσοι διὰ γῆρας ἤ τινα ἄλλην ξυμφορὰν ἀπόλεμοι ἦσαν:καὶ οὗτοι αὐτῷ ἐγένοντο ἐς τοὺς μυρίους. τούτοις δὲ τήν τε μισθοφορὰν οὐ τοῦ ἐξήκοντος ἤδη χρόνου ἔδωκεν Ἀλέξανδρος μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἐς τὴν ἀπονόστησιν τὴν οἴκαδε ξυμβαίνοντος.
Different word for discharge here ἀπῄεσαν
LSJ ἄπειμι (B), (εἶμι)
3. to be discharged, Hp.Mul.8, al.
Something of a slam dunk, further, Alexander pays them up until they arrive home as a bonus, normally pay would end with the service but he pays them for travelling home, were they still in service this would not merit comment, soldiers in service expect to be paid in my experience.

Both Curtius and Justin use words that also imply ‘discharge’ and I’ll expound if you insist.

So Paralus’ usage is fine when one considers the appropriate part of the text; good attempt at misdirection, though. :roll:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

Xenophon asserted
The Argyraspides were no longer a ‘Royal Bodyguard’ after Alexander’s death, and nobody’s “personal Royal Household troops”. [see e.g Justin XIV.2]
which reads
In the meantime Antigonus came up with his army, and having pitched his camp, offered battle on the following day. Nor did Eumenes delay to engage with him; but, being defeated, he fled to a fortress, where, when he saw that he must submit to the hazard of a siege, he dismissed the greater part of his army, lest he should either be delivered to the enemy by consent of the multitude, or the sufferings of the siege should be aggravated by too great a number. He then sent a deputation to Antipater, who was the only general that seemed a match for the power of Antigonus, to entreat his aid; and Antigonus, hearing that succour was despatched by him to Eumenes, gave up the siege. Eumenes was thus for a time, indeed, relieved from fear of death; but, as so great a portion of his army was sent away, he had no great hope of ultimate safety. After taking everything into consideration, therefore, he thought it best to apply to the Argyraspides of Alexander the Great, a body of men that had never yet been conquered, and radiant with the glory of so many victories. But the Argyraspides disdained all leaders in comparison with Alexander, and thought service under other generals dishonourable to the memory of so great a monarch. Eumenes had, therefore, to address them with flattery; he spoke to each of them in the language of a suppliant, calling them his “fellow-soldiers,” his “patrons,” or his “companions in the dangers and exploits of the east;” sometimes styling them “his refuge for protection, and his only security;” saying that “they were the only troops by whose valour the east had been subdued; the only troops that had gone beyond the achievements of Bacchus and the monuments of Hercules; that by them Alexander had become great, by them had attained divine honours and immortal glory;” and he begged them “to receive him, not so much in the character of a general, as in that of a fellow-soldier, and to allow him to be one of their body.” Being received on these terms, he gradually succeeded, first by giving them hints individually, and afterwards by gently correcting whatever was done amiss, in gaining the sole command. Nothing could be done in the camp without him; nothing managed without the aid of his judgment.

Since Justin is now a source whose detail is to be believed let’s look at what he says on the veterans; XII 11
11 He next assembled the army, and promised that “he would pay all their debts at his own expense,” so that they might carry home their spoil and prizes undiminished. This munificence was highly prized, not only for the sum given, but for the character of the gift, and was received not more thankfully by the debtors than by the creditors, exaction being as troublesome to the one as payment to the other. Twenty thousand talents were expended in this largess. Discharging some of the veterans, he recruited the army with younger soldiers. But those that were retained, murmuring at the discharge of the older men, demanded that they themselves should be released likewise; desiring that “their years, not of life, but of service, should be counted,” and thinking it reasonable that “those who had been enlisted in the service together, should together be set free from the service.” Nor did they address the king only with entreaties, but also with reproaches, bidding him “carry on his wars alone, with the aid of his father Ammon, since he looked with disdain on his soldiers.” Alexander, on the other hand, sometimes upbraided his men, and sometimes charged them in gentle terms, “not to tarnish their glorious services by mutiny.” At last, when he could produce no effect by words, he leaped unarmed from his tribunal among the armed multitude, to lay hands on the authors of the mutiny; and not a man daring to oppose him, he led thirteen of them, whom he had seized with his own hand, to punishment. Such submission to death did the fear of their king produce in the men; or such courage in inflicting punishment had his knowledge of military discipline given the king.

12 He then addressed himself, in a public speech, to the auxiliary troops of the Persians apart from the Macedonians. He extolled their constant fidelity, as well as to himself as to their former kings; he mentioned the kindnesses which he had shown them, saying that “he had never treated them as a conquered people, but always as sharers in his successes; that he had gone over to the usages of their nation, not they to those of his; and that he had mingled the conquerors with the conquered by matrimonial connexions. And now,” he added, “he would entrust the guardianship of his person, not to the Macedonians only, but also to them.” Accordingly, he enrolled a thousand of their young men among his bodyguard; and at the same time incorporated into his army a portion of the auxiliaries, trained after the discipline of the Macedonians. At this proceeding the Macedonians were much dissatisfied, exclaiming that “their enemies were put into their places by their king;” and at length they all went to Alexander in a body, beseeching him with tears “to content himself rather with punishing than ill-treating them.” By this modest forbearance they produced such an effect upon him, that he released eleven thousand veterans more. Of his own friends, too, were sent away the old men, Polysperchon, Clitus, Gorgias, Polydamas, Amadas, and Antigenes. Of those that were sent home Craterus was appointed leader, and commissioned to take the government of Macedonia in the room of Antipater, whom he sent for, with a body of recruits, to supply the place of Craterus. Pay was allowed to those that went home, as if they had been still in the service.
So this accurate source has veterans dismissed before the mutiny and replaced by younger drafts from Zeus knows where, he assumes that all the army crossed at the same time, else the length of service point has none, he also has 11,000 plus discharged (Perdikkas would have no men left!), one of those attested in Perdikkas’ camp at his murder, Antigenes allegedly first went home; this is tosh but at least you referenced it. :lol: :lol: :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

Nor do many scholars, such as Hammond, already referred to, Badian, Billows and others agree with Bosworth’s interpretation of the possibly ambiguous Greek.
I presume you have the relevant references, I won't be trying to find them, they may just be a line from 'The Huffington Post', and we know where that sort of confusion leads; so, tell us where these arguments are to be found and which ones you are willing to discuss. A reply should only be a moment unless you are just throwing out names on the off chance. Hammond of course you need not bother with as you will not discuss his article.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:As for the Aetolians, they were in no position to intervene even had they wanted to, having been heavily defeated previously by the Macedonians under Polyperchon. [Diod XVIII.38 ], not to mention some ‘military realities’.
In fact, the Aetolians had not been defeated by Polyperchon at all - "heavily" or otherwise. Polyperchon had waited on events, not willing to take the field against the “twenty-five thousand infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry” that Alexander, the Aetolian general, had assembled in Thessaly. Polyperchon took the field only after Alexander had departed for Aetolia along with the Aetolian levy of “twelve thousand foot soldiers and four hundred horsemen” on the news that the Acarnanians had invaded Aetolia. This is entirely logical given the greater part of the Macedonian army was in Asia ostensibly to engage in a fight for empire with the royal army under Perdikkas.

At the time, then, that Polyperchon, the court and army are in Phokis, the Aetolians are yet to be dealt with for having “defeated Antipater's general Polycles in battle, killing him and no small number of his soldiers”. It is not really militarily probable that the king, court and regent are without the army while in the neighbourhood of a league which had so recently mustered 12,000 infantry and defeated a Macedonian general and his army.
Diod. 18.38
After the departure of Antipater for Asia, the Aetolians, in accordance with their compact with Perdiccas, made a campaign into Thessaly for the purpose of diverting Antipater. They had twelve thousand foot soldiers and four hundred horsemen, and their general was Alexander, an Aetolian. On the march they besieged the city of the Amphissian p119Locrians, overran their country, and captured some of the neighbouring towns. They defeated Antipater's general Polycles in battle, killing him and no small number of his soldiers. Some of those who were taken captive they sold, others they released on receiving ransoms. Invading Thessaly next, they persuaded most of the Thessalians to join them in the war against Antipater, and a force was quickly gathered, numbering in all twenty-five thousand infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry. While they were gaining the cities, however, the Acarnanians, who were hostile to the Aetolians, invaded Aetolia, where they began to plunder the land and to besiege the cities. When the Aetolians learned that their own country was in danger, they left the other troops in Thessaly, putting Menon of Pharsalus in command, while they themselves with the citizen soldiers went swiftly into Aetolia and, by striking fear into the Acarnanians, freed their native cities from danger. While, however, they were engaged in these matters, Polyperchon, who had been left in Macedonia as general, came into Thessaly with a considerable army and, by defeating the enemy in a battle in which he killed the general Menon and cut most of his army to pieces, recovered Thessaly.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

For the evidence that at the end of his reign, Alexander’s phalanx numbered 8x2,000 ‘Taxeis’, see Ueda-Sarson pp 6-7 of 8, which is also the total number referred to in the Hellenistic manuals and elsewhere.
Since you continue to cite, note definition below (it is not a synonym for ‘to quote’)
refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work
this please pin down which arguments you claim support this view.
Furthermore, the creation of a seventh 2000-man unit would soak up more of the 6000 Macedonian foot reinforcements that arrived at Susa from Macedonia than a 1500-man unit would (Arrian 3.16.11); it may even be that two such units were formed, giving eight taxeis (see below)
Hey why not three and soak them all up? Arrian does not actually give the number of reinforcements
[11] …τοὺς πεζοὺς δὲ προσέθηκενταῖς τάξεσι ταῖς ἄλλαις, κατὰ ἔθνη ἑκάστους ξυντάξας.
and the foot he added to the various regiments of infantry, arranging each according to nationalities
that comes from Curtius V 1 xl, as quoted previously.
A final piece of evidence comes from the combination of two sources I believe have not been related together before. The Roman historian Dio records (78.7.1-2, see David Karunanithy's article in Slingshot 213, 33-40) that when the emperor Caracalla recreated an entire Macedonian phalanx, was said to be 16000 strong, just as the Hellenistic manuals claim their (and therefore Alexander's) phalanx was. Although there were only 6 taxeis at Gaugamela, by the battle of Hydaspes there were seemingly more. Arrian in fact names 11 taxiarchs in the Indian campaign (see Brunt's notes to the Loeb Arrian, p487), but some of these were not always commanding infantry at the time - Koenos (5.16.3), Kraterus (5.11.3), and Kleitos (5.22.6) all seemingly commanded hipparchies at the battle of Hydaspes, so there may have been only 8 actual taxeis, and 8 taxeis of 2000 men would fit Dio and the 3 Hellenistic manuals admirably.
So you think Caracalla actually raised a four legion worth pike phalanx? Of course, since all the ‘Manuals’ predate Caracalla he could have just taken the organisation from them so the match is hardly surprising, nor illuminating. Let’s look at what Dio says
7 He was so enthusiastic about Alexander that he used certain weapons and cups which he believed had once been his, and he also set up many likenesses of him both in the camps and in Rome itself. He organized a phalanx, composed entirely of Macedonians, sixteen thousand strong, named it "Alexander's phalanx," and equipped it with the arms that warriors had used in his day; 2 these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword. (ταῦτα δ᾽ ἦν κράνος ὠμοβόειον, θώραξ λινοῦς τρίμιτος, ἀσπὶς χαλκῆ, δόρυ μακρόν,
αἰχμὴ βραχεῖα, κρηπῖδες, ξίφος.)
Perhaps someone can point to a passage in a manual claiming that the phalanx was double armed with ‘long spear and short javelin’, Diodoros’ dual is the only instance I recall and that is fiction, so the basis of this notional phalanx seems equally fictional and nothing to do with the actual ‘Phalanx of Alexander’. Dio detested Caracalla and this is just a tale of a loony emperor.

Further Caracalla was not the only alleged re-enactor in purple the Scriptores Historiae Augusti says this for Severus Alexander, successor to Heliogabalus, Severus Alexander 50 v
He therefore raised his own silver shields and golden shields, he also raised a phalanx of 30,000 men, whom he ordered to be called phalangarii and did much with them in Persis; these were the equivalent of six legions and had the same arms, most, indeed remaining enlisted after the Persian War

[5] fecerat denique sibi argyroaspidas et chrysoaspidas, 1 fecerat et phalangem trigintamilium hominum, quos phalangarios vocari iusserat et cum quibus multum fecit in 2 Perside; quae quidem erat ex sexlegionibus similium armorum, stipendiorum vero post bellum Persicum maiorum.
Where does Ueda-Sarson think the idea for 30,000 came from? And let’s not forget the I Italica, raised by Nero to campaign in Armenia and nicknamed ‘The Phalanx of Alexander’, maybe Nero had sources lost to us demonstrating that there were 5,000 men in Alexander’s original, somehow I doubt it. What I do not doubt is that the Neronian parallel would not be lost on a Roman audience.

He follows with a good illustration of the folly of thinking ‘taxis’, always a general catch-all, plain and ordinary, ‘unit’ in Arrian. Several of the 11 taxeis are in fact light infantry, once they are eliminated seven remain. No grounds for a fictional eighth.

Further, think back to those re-inforcements; they are distributed among the units ‘kata ethne’; did Alexander create two new ethnai? Why not stick with the actual evidence and have the seven ‘phalanges’ attested, six entirely ethnic and a seventh for the overspill?

Then there is this
Babylon, 324 BC: 4000 Argyraspids, in 4 chiliarchies of 1000; 16000 Pezetairoi in 8 taxeis of 2000, 1000 archers, 300 agema Companions, 4000 other Companions in 4 ephipparchies of 1000 (plus 1000 other Companions and 30000 mostly Persian Pezetairoi).

Babylon, 323 BC: 1000 Argyraspids; 10000 Pezetairoi in 5 taxeis of 2000 (some of which are having Persian missile troops incorporated into their ranks), 300 agema Companions, 4000 other Companions in 4 ephipparchies of 1000 (plus 1000 mostly Persian Companions, 1000 Persian Hypaspists, 1000 Persian Argyraspids, 1000 Persian agema and 27000 other mostly Persian Pezetairoi)
So when Krateros takes his 10,000 plus veterans there are still a further 10,000 left? And 3,000 Argyraspides quit Babylon? This is not scholarship.

And what to make of this?
1. Eg. the translator of the Loeb version of Asklepiodotos, Oldfather, says of the number "no one would dream of allowing it to interfere with practical considerations"; one would rather have thought the number is a power of two precisely because of such practical considerations as the requirement to be able to double and halve depths, etc
Does he really not understand that all that matters to be able to halve or double depth is that the file has to be divisable by two, can three or five or forty-three files of sixteen cannot form depths of eight or thirty-two???

No doubt this is an irrelevant digression, yawn, and you do not wish to discuss the work you have cited; but fortunately you arrived at his conclusions independently and before him by over a decade, perhaps you can share what led you to the relevation?
I thoroughly recommend it to anyone interested in this subject ! It is not just Luke’s idea, though. Many others have realised the unlikelihood if not impossibility of a 1500 man ‘Taxis’ in the Macedonian phalanx, before him. For example, as long ago as the 1970’s I concluded that the phalanx numbered 2,000 (in round figures for much the same reasons as Luke ( see “Warfare in the Classical World” Warry [ Salamander 1980] pp80 and 81 for example) and I’m sure many others before and since.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

Also, it would be surprising if an army consisted solely of “heavy foot” and indeed this appears to be a mistranslation in the Loeb, for the Greek simply says “pezoi” – foot or infantry, and does not say at all that they were all ‘heavy’.[Diod XVIII.16.5]
… πεζοὶ μὲν πλείους τῶντετρακισμυρίων ἐν τοῖς βαρέσιν ὅπλοις, τοξόται δὲ καὶ σφενδονῆται τρισχίλιοι,
Literally and keeping the same word order, ‘…infantry rather more than forty thousand with heavy arms, archers and slingers three thousand…
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Amyntoros wrote:
“I simply wanted to reiterate that there are (here and everywhere else) differing opinions as to certain information and events. Anson's opinion does not rule out Xenophon's suggestion of a "possible" rebellion in Cilicia. It does, in fact, support it somewhat via the statement " ...and time for preparation (securing Cilicia and the Hellespont)."
I have pointed this out elsewhere on the site, it is what makes ancient history such a fertile ground for debate, the fact that so little is certain, and that much is missing. ( see e.g. the ‘Neoptolemus ;the invisible archihypaspist’ thread. Having said which, certain information is widely accepted as being factual and some information is indisputable. As well, not all opinions carry the same weight, and the value of an informed opinion outweighs the value of an un-informed or ill-informed one.

An illustration of the above occurs in the Anson quote above. It is a fact that nowhere in our sources are we told what Craterus was doing in Cilicia. There was certainly upheaval there, due to the death of Balacrus the Somatophylax, Alexander’s appointed Satrap of the whole region. ( and we are not told whether he died in battle or was murdered, simply that he was “put to death” [Diod XVIII.22.]) I have alluded to the various bouts of rebellion and fighting in the whole region.

Anson wrote: “Craterus was preparing a fleet either to attack Athens over the Harpalus affair or in preparation for Alexander's proclaimed western campaign (Diod. 18.4.4; Arr. Anab. 7.1.2; Curt. 10.1.17).”[see above]
...as if it were fact, which it clearly is not. Furthermore he is somewhat careless with his quoted sources. Diodorus XVIII.4.4 does NOT refer to Craterus building a fleet, but rather Alexander’s grandiose FUTURE plans ( which were never acted upon) to build 1,000 polyremes, for a western campaign against Carthage; likewise Arrian VII.1.2, which doesn’t refer to shipbuilding at all – and Arrian goes on to say he has no idea as to whether these reported plans of Alexander are true or not. Curtius X.1.17 is the same, though Curtius goes on [X.1.19] to suggest that Alexander ordered timber to be cut on Mt Libanus and transported to Syria to build 700 ‘sevens’ ( very unlikely, and probably an anachronism anyway).

Amyntoros wrote:
“...and all feel they have nothing more to say then I would like it if each could summarize their views and then give their figures...... where numbers are concerned an eventual summary would be nice. Not a requirement - just a request. ”
I did that in the very first post, which I’ll repeat here, for convenience !
agesilaos wrote:Diodoros XVIII 68 i Kassandros has 4,000 infantry from Antigonos, so unlikely to be Macedonians more likely Mercenaries, who will also have formed the garrisons of many of the cities he could call on; Polyperchon has 20,000 Macedonians, 4,000 allies, 1,000 cavalry and 65 elephants during his move on Athens just before Megalopolis. About all I can find at the moment.
Just a short note on these figures. We aren't told the number of Kassander's own troops - or even if he had any - in addition to those supplied by Antigonus.

One thing is all but certain though - Diodorus' figures for Polyperchon's army can hardly be correct. Antipater originally had some 12,000 Macedonian troops when Alexander headed east with a similar number. Thereafter, it is estimated some 2-3,000 new recruits could be called up annually, less perhaps a similar, or perhaps a little smaller, number discharged as too old or unfit. Alexander constantly drained Macedon of troops, so that Antipater was never able to field more than 12-13,000 Macedonian infantry. In fact Diodorus comments on his constant shortage of men [ XVIII.12] at the time of the Lamian war. Later rulers of Macedon could field 13,300 ( Antigonus Doson; Sellasia); 16,000 (Philip V Kynoskephalae) - and note that the theorists envisaged a maximum phalanx of this size, ; 21,000 ( Perseus at Pydna after 'scraping the barrel' with youths and old men).

I have not included the large Hellenistic Successor armies for obviously these we were not genuine 'Macedonians'.

Given that Polyperchon did not have a monopoly on Macedonian troops, a figure of 20,000 is pretty much out of the question. The actual number must have been far less - which might also explain why Polyperchon was unable to take action against Kassander.”
Notes: *Antigonus Doson had 10,000 phalangites plus 3,000 Guard Peltasts and 300 Guard cavalry ( plus other non-Macedonian troops) at Sellasia in 222 BC [Polybius II.65 ] and in 219 BC fielded 10,000 phalangites plus 5,000 Guard Peltasts and 800 Macedonian cavalry [Polybius IV.37.7]
* Philip V’s 16,000 at Kynoskephalae in 197 BC includes 3,000 Guard Peltasts.[Livy XXXIV.4]
* Perseus in 171 BC had a phalanx of 21-23,000 plus 5,000 Guard Peltasts in army numbering 43,000[Livy XII.51] and at Pydna in 168 BC fielded an army of 40,000, of whom there were 21,000 phalangites and 5,000 Peltasts [Plutarch Aemilius Paullus XIII.4 and Walbank "Historical Commentary on Polybius" p.388]
* Polyperchon did not have a monopoly on Makedone phalangites because of course many thousands served with other Diadochi.
*Alexander’s former army in Babylon had a possible maximum of 16,000 Makedone phalangites ( and some of these may not have been Macedonian, but replacements recruited from Greek mercenaries, allies etc), of whom 10,000 veterans were with Craterus in Cilicia leaving 4-6,000 with Perdiccas ( probably 4,000 since this number represents the Makedone portion of Alexander’s proposed ‘mixed’ Macedonian/Persian phalanx.)
* This gives us the largest number of men ever in the Macedonian phalanx, which occurred at the end of Alexander's reign, and is likly rather less than 28,000 men, spread out between Macedon and Babylon .Polyperchon clearly did not field a pike phalanx of 20,000 'Makedones' [contra Diodorus]

And let’s not forget that’s as far as I wanted to go. Since then this thread was born; Paralus digresses and presents a variety of claims of the “coulda, woulda, shoulda” variety and Agesilaos makes vague claims about “vast” numbers of phalangites. Neither of them produce much actual source evidence to support their assertions.

Amended to add references for numbers above.
Last edited by Xenophon on Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Paralus wrote:
Xenophon wrote:If only a few of the dozen or so Diadochi had raised ‘Hypaspists/Guards’ your rationale for assuming that Philip Arrhidaios must have had such vanishes. I re-iterate that no such unit is ever referred to in our sources for this period.

So there was no attested hypaspist / guards unit for Philip II (or Alexander IV) after the Argyraspides supposedly refused to serve an infant and mental incompetent king? You spent a good amount of time arguing that Neoptolemus, as 'archyhypaspist', was the commander of the hypaspists in the years after Alexander's death on another thread - possibly up to two years. Such a unit can only have been the in the royal army and the kings' guard unit. Yet here you argue no such unit existed.
That is very misleading, not to mention out of context. What I actually said at the time was: “On the contrary, I have no set viewpoint on the matter. I speak in terms of 'possibilities', 'probabilities' and 'ambiguities' and put forward what is consistent with the evidence.” Once only, in the context of showing that we don’t know what Neoptolemus was doing or where he was for a two year period, I wrote hypothetically –“There is no reason Neoptolemus could not have been archihypaspist for up to two years or so, or even a lesser period, between Alexander's death in June 323, and some time before the outbreak of hostilities, before he went to Armenia, in whatever capacity he was sent.” i.e. simply referring to a possibility.

The only possible candidate for a Guard would be the 1,000 Persian Hypaspists raised by Alexander ( if they did in fact exist as an actual unit, which is doubtful, none of the other proposed Persian equivalents of Macedonian units, with Macedonian titles seem to have actually existed), that may have been part of Perdiccas' army in Egypt ( see the reference to Hypaspists at 'Camel's Fort ). Needless to say, there is no record of such a unit going to Europe, nor would we expect them to.
I repeat that is is untenable that the king and his court were in Phokis without the army and that they returned without there being an army with them. The scenario I suggested is far more logical. That is, that Alexander is deputed a force necessary for the occasion to carry onto to Athens while the main body traveled on with the regent and the court. Athens was not in revolt but asking for assistance to enforce the diagramma. In fact, Alexander appears to have facillitated the entry of exiles into the city.
There’s no point repeating what is pure supposition without source evidence, no matter how “logical” you believe it to be. Diodorus does not mention any ‘splitting’ of the Macedonian army, nor any army, or ‘main body’ being with Polyperchon in Phokis, and the only army referred to is that commanded by his son Alexander, which is sent on ahead to Athens.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
The word translated here as ‘he had released’ is ἀπολελυμένων .......
The same word is used in Plutarch Alx. 71.v......
It is also telling how these discharges are described, τοὺς ἀχρήστους .......
Which brings us to Arrian where those to be dismissed are also described VII 8 I,

συναγαγὼν τοὺς Μακεδόνας προεῖπεν ὅτι τοὺς ὑπὸ γήρως ἢ πηρώσεως τοῦ σώματος ἀχρείους ἐς τὰ πολέμια ὄντας παραλύει μὲν τῆς στρατιᾶς
he collected the Macedonians and announced that he intended to discharge from the army those who were useless for military service either from age or from being maimed in the limbs;

So the men being discharged are ‘not fit for duty’.

Arrian VII 12 i
THEN those of the Macedonians who were unfit for service on account of age or any other misfortune went back of their own accord, to the number of about 10,000. To these Alexander gave the pay not only for the time which had already elapsed, but also for that which they would take in returning home. He also gave to each man a talent in addition to his pay.
ἔνθα δὴ ἐθελονταὶ ἤδη αὐτῷ ἀπῄεσαν τῶν Μακεδόνων ὅσοι διὰ γῆρας ἤ τινα ἄλλην ξυμφορὰν ἀπόλεμοι ἦσαν:καὶ οὗτοι αὐτῷ ἐγένοντο ἐς τοὺς μυρίους. τούτοις δὲ τήν τε μισθοφορὰν οὐ τοῦ ἐξήκοντος ἤδη χρόνου ἔδωκεν Ἀλέξανδρος μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἐς τὴν ἀπονόστησιν τὴν οἴκαδε ξυμβαίνοντος.

Different word for discharge here ἀπῄεσαν ......
Something of a slam dunk, further, Alexander pays them up until they arrive home as a bonus, normally pay would end with the service but he pays them for travelling home, were they still in service this would not merit comment, soldiers in service expect to be paid in my experience.

Both Curtius and Justin use words that also imply ‘discharge’ and I’ll expound if you insist.

So Paralus’ usage is fine when one considers the appropriate part of the text; good attempt at misdirection, though.
....Yes, by you! :roll:
A thorough presentation, but amidst all the definitions I don’t see “retire”, which is certainly not the same as ‘dismiss’, ‘discharge’ etc. So Paralus’ usage is not what the sources say.

Originally, Alexander’s stated aim was to retain 13,000 infantry ( and 2,000 cavalry), which would imply he intended to release only 2-3,000 infantry at most as ‘too old and unfit’.[Curtius X.2.8] This prompted the mutiny at Opis [C. X.2.12], with the whole army demanding to go home. The compromise reached was that 10,000 would go ( hence releasing more than he intended to retain, which would now be 4-6,000 or so infantry and 3-4,000 Hypaspists/Silver Shields). That all the 10,000 infantry (and 1,500 cavalry) are now described as the ‘old and unfit’ is a face-saving device for Alexander. That they were not so is proven by the fact that these men in fact continued to serve the Diadochi for another ten years or more, as many have noted.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Post by agesilaos » Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:01 pm
Xenophon asserted

The Argyraspides were no longer a ‘Royal Bodyguard’ after Alexander’s death, and nobody’s “personal Royal Household troops”. [see e.g Justin XIV.2]
Since Justin is now a source whose detail is to be believed let’s look at what he says on the veterans; XII 11.
The relevant extract is:

But the Argyraspides disdained all leaders in comparison with Alexander, and thought service under other generals dishonourable to the memory of so great a monarch.”, and confirmation of this comes, inter alia, from the fact that Eumenes had to raise his own Guards/Hypaspists, for the Silver Shields would evidently not serve in that capacity.
11 He next assembled the army, and promised that “he would pay all their debts at his own expense,” so that they might carry home their spoil and prizes undiminished. This munificence was highly prized, not only for the sum given, but for the character of the gift, and was received not more thankfully by the debtors than by the creditors, exaction being as troublesome to the one as payment to the other. Twenty thousand talents were expended in this largess. Discharging some of the veterans, he recruited the army with younger soldiers. But those that were retained, murmuring at the discharge of the older men, demanded that they themselves should be released likewise; desiring that “their years, not of life, but of service, should be counted,” and thinking it reasonable that “those who had been enlisted in the service together, should together be set free from the service.” Nor did they address the king only with entreaties, but also with reproaches, bidding him “carry on his wars alone, with the aid of his father Ammon, since he looked with disdain on his soldiers.” Alexander, on the other hand, sometimes upbraided his men, and sometimes charged them in gentle terms, “not to tarnish their glorious services by mutiny.” At last, when he could produce no effect by words, he leaped unarmed from his tribunal among the armed multitude, to lay hands on the authors of the mutiny; and not a man daring to oppose him, he led thirteen of them, whom he had seized with his own hand, to punishment. Such submission to death did the fear of their king produce in the men; or such courage in inflicting punishment had his knowledge of military discipline given the king.

12 He then addressed himself, in a public speech, to the auxiliary troops of the Persians apart from the Macedonians. He extolled their constant fidelity, as well as to himself as to their former kings; he mentioned the kindnesses which he had shown them, saying that “he had never treated them as a conquered people, but always as sharers in his successes; that he had gone over to the usages of their nation, not they to those of his; and that he had mingled the conquerors with the conquered by matrimonial connexions. And now,” he added, “he would entrust the guardianship of his person, not to the Macedonians only, but also to them.” Accordingly, he enrolled a thousand of their young men among his bodyguard; and at the same time incorporated into his army a portion of the auxiliaries, trained after the discipline of the Macedonians. At this proceeding the Macedonians were much dissatisfied, exclaiming that “their enemies were put into their places by their king;” and at length they all went to Alexander in a body, beseeching him with tears “to content himself rather with punishing than ill-treating them.” By this modest forbearance they produced such an effect upon him, that he released eleven thousand veterans more. Of his own friends, too, were sent away the old men, Polysperchon, Clitus, Gorgias, Polydamas, Amadas, and Antigenes. Of those that were sent home Craterus was appointed leader, and commissioned to take the government of Macedonia in the room of Antipater, whom he sent for, with a body of recruits, to supply the place of Craterus. Pay was allowed to those that went home, as if they had been still in the service.

So this accurate source has veterans dismissed before the mutiny and replaced by younger drafts from Zeus knows where, he assumes that all the army crossed at the same time, else the length of service point has none, he also has 11,000 plus discharged (Perdikkas would have no men left!), one of those attested in Perdikkas’ camp at his murder, Antigenes allegedly first went home; this is tosh but at least you referenced it.


You seem rather confused. The veterans to be dismissed before the mutiny are consistent with those referred to by Curtius - the 2-3,000 that Alexander originally intended to let go.[ X.2.8] who would ultimately be replaced by drafts from Macedonia. I don’t read this passage that he thinks all crossed into Asia together. He simply says: “that their years, not of life, but of service, should be counted,” and thinking it reasonable that “those who had been enlisted in the service together, should together be set free from the service.” In other words they were looking to be treated equitably. In fact 11,500 were despatched under Craterus – 10,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry. (Justin’s 11,000 is probably just a ‘round number’.) He doesn’t say Antigenes went ‘home’, rather that he was ‘sent away’ with the others, all under Craterus. I fear it is your misreading of the passage that is ‘tosh’, to use your word.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Post by agesilaos » Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:12 pm
Nor do many scholars, such as Hammond, already referred to, Badian, Billows and others agree with Bosworth’s interpretation of the possibly ambiguous Greek.
I presume you have the relevant references, I won't be trying to find them, they may just be a line from 'The Huffington Post', and we know where that sort of confusion leads; so, tell us where these arguments are to be found and which ones you are willing to discuss. A reply should only be a moment unless you are just throwing out names on the off chance. Hammond of course you need not bother with as you will not discuss his article.

The source for my statement is Bosworth himself [ p.64 “Legacy...” ] “My conclusions have been
sharply challenged, by Nicholas Hammond, Ernst Badian,and Richard Billows” [N. G, L. Hammond, JHS tog ( i g S g ) (sec also ORBS 25 (1984) 51-61);E. Badian, in Ventures into Greek Historv, ; R. A. Billows, Kings and Colonists,]


If you want to know more, you’ll have to look them up yourself and start a new thread if you wish to discuss Bosworth and his critics.
Post Reply