Pezhetairoi and phalangites

[Paralus]

All the same these considerations are beside the point, despite being interesting;

Indeed they are….interesting that is. One would enjoy exploring such diversions further, but, is likely more inclined towards protecting posting privileges from possible editorial eviction.

Possibly a thread I've been writing, editing and deleting…

…did Alexander I extend the 'companionate' to the majority of the Macedonian infantry? I think not...

... It may just be that the ordinary troops were called 'hoplites' as they are in the first two books of Arrian...

The social status of the earlier infantry has, perhaps, more bearing than arguments over their efficacy.

I agree. There would need to be a significant "companionate" for it to be extended to. Thucydides makes the point that, aside from Perdiccas' Lower Kingdom of Macedonia, in the interior "there are Macedonians also – the Lyncestians, the Elimiots, and other tribes – who are allies and dependants of the Macedonian King, but who have separate kings of their own…" (Thuc. II.99). Not a situation that facilitates the extending of companionate. "Allies" and "dependants" some might be, but, Philip II's Macedonian state? Not likely. A lose alliance of fiefdoms most likely, each of which having its own "barons" supporting the King.

I somehow doubt – if not the existence absolutely – the efficacy of any "pezhetairoi" infantry prior to Philip II's reforms, equipping and training. Social status – as Agesilaos mentions – is paramount here, as is the spreading of landed largesse to the "companionate" – a major reason for continued Macedonian imperialism. I doubt the social conditions existed under Alexander I for any expansion of the companionate.

Interestingly Hammond, Philip of Macedon (Duckworth, 1994), baldly states – citing little in direct evidence other than a than a note to Anaximenes and another of his publications – that the reforms were down to Alexander II:

Then Alexander (II) extended the companionate system to include not only the cavalrymen, as in the past, but also the infantrymen of the King's Forces…and he began to train the infantrymen in a phalanx formation, of which the depth was in files of ten men. During the reign of Amyntas the Macedonian infantrymen, fighting as light-armed skirmishers, had been outclassed by the Illyrians who had adopted Greek hoplite equipment and methods; by the Chalcidian hoplites and even by the Thracian peltasts…Through Alexander's reform the infantrymen of the King's Forces were to become hoplites and to bear the honourable title of pezhetairoi, meaning "infantrymen-companions".

All of which is interesting, to use Agesilaos' adjective. Marching against those same Illyrian "hoplites" with an army of Macedonian "infantrymen-companion" hoplites, Perdiccas III suffered such a catastrophic reverse that he neglected to bring some four thousand of those "hoplites" home from the battlefield. That would be, of course, because he also left himself on the same field.

It would also mean, if Hammond is correct, that by the time Philip II was ready to invade Asia there would be something in the order of 30,000+ "hoplites" bearing "the honourable title of pezhetairoi".

Any wonder Macedonian lebensraum in the east.

[smittysmitty]

I realise this discussion is getting a little long in the tooth by now, but it has been fun reacqauinting myself with Herodotus, Thucydides amongst others. But there are a couple of other points I'd like to raise, not for the sake of convincing anyone-simply for the sake of discussion.

'Social status – as Agesilaos mentions – is paramount here, as is the spreading of landed largesse to the "companionate" – a major reason for continued Macedonian imperialism. I doubt the social conditions existed under Alexander I for any expansion of the companionate'.


Regarding imperial ambition, Macedons territorial gains and expanse of kingdom was at its greatest under Alexander I. For newley acquired territories see Justin [7.4], Thucydides [2.99] and Herodotus [5.17]. It was only to be surpassed by Philip II and obviously his son Alexander. There was more than enough newly aquired land and indeed for the first time in Macedon's history, currency, to go around during the reign of Alexander I.

Macedon during the reign of Perdiccas is a fragmented state - there would have been no dissension from the upper cantons or for that matter rivalry from siblings. Having said that, I dont beleive Macedon was all that bad off during Perdiccas' reign either.

Essentially Alexanders I, whilst under Persian vassalage created an entirely new Macedonian empire. The problem being, how do you maintain such an empire. The most obvious thing to do is take a leaf out of the greatest empire of the time - the Achaemenid empire. When we look at the Anaximines fragment it 's not that different to the reforms introduced by Cyrus the Great. I'll include both - and you can make your own mind up as to their similarity.

Anaximenes [FGrH 72.F4] 'Alexander, having accustomed those of highest repute to ride, he gave the title of "Companions" whereas to the majority, i.e. the infantry (pezetairoi), having divided them into companies and sections of ten and intending that each group having a share in the King's companionship should continue at their keenest.'

From Xenephon's Cyropaedia we see similar reforms where by the Persian nobility, the 'peers' are organised into cavaalry commands [2.1.9-22] and that of the "commoners" being rearmed and drilled into a decimal system of organisation are elevated in status to "peers" also.

Whilst you may not agree with the Persian/Macedonian proposition - at the very least you should agree that conditions during the reign of Alexander I where indeed condusive for the creation of such reforms.

Regarding fifth century hoplites and their performance in Macedon, it should be recalled such troops were usually accompanied by large native armies and for the most part were rather ineffectual in the region. Indeed it is interesting to note that most holplites from the Southern states attempting to go north by land would do so only if express permission was given to them by Macedon - had permission not been granted they would then go by sea route. It is also rather surprising to note that with the eventual eviction of Persians by the Greeks - they never followed up as far as Macedon. It may simply be that there was nothing of interest for them there - or perhaps it was just too dangerous to take a large force away from home. Either way, Macedon was never really threatened by the southern states and whatever accounts we have of Greek hoplites having some success, are usually accompanied by large native forces. The more I think about it, I actually think they were quite ineffectual overall. But I guess that's another discussion.

Archelaus' reforms read as such. [Thucy. 2.100] 'Archelaus also built straight roads through the country, reorganized the cavalry, the arming of the infantry, and equipment in general, so as to put the country in a stronger position for war than it had ever been under all eight kings who had ruled before him.'

Had this statement suggested it was the infantry that was reorganised rather than the cavalry, I would have said fair enough, the Pezetairoi most probably were instituted during his reign and were indeed an elite troop. But as it stands, the infantry have simply been rearmed and given new equipment. What that amounts too I'm not sure. New spears, shields, grieves,helmets etc - but it certainly doesn't suggest to me a reorganisation of the infantry - as in the creation of new units such as hypaspist,
pezetairoi,or whatever.

With Hammonds suggestion of Alexander II (and I think A.B. Bosworth) as the instigator of the pezetairoi - I think the most significant criticism for this suggestion is that Alexander II probably wasn't around long enough to implement such changes.

Anyhow, enough from me - - not enough sleep. But I have enjoyed it immensley. Reminds me of when I had more time to myself and could particpate in such discussions on the forum.


Cheers!

[smittysmitty]

Amyntoros, many thanks for helping me to edit posts. I have done so - and looks great now.

One other thing I'd like to learn - if you have the time or anyone else for that matter, is when quoting some one else's post or part of - how do you manage to get them in those white rectangles?


Sorry for being so dumb


Many thanks for your help.

[marcus]

One other thing I'd like to learn - if you have the time or anyone else for that matter, is when quoting some one else's post or part of - how do you manage to get them in those white rectangles?

Use the "quote" button on the top right of the message you're replying to. It's actually "reply with quote". Once you've done that, you can edit what's inside the quote - cutting out the bits you don't want, etc.

ATB

[smittysmitty]

[quote="marcus"][quote="smittysmitty"]
Use the "quote" button

[smittysmitty]

One other thing I'd like to learn - if you have the time or anyone else for that matter, is when quoting some one else's post or part of - how do you manage to get them in those white rectangles?

Use the "quote" button on the top right of the message you're replying to. It's actually "reply with quote". Once you've done that, you can edit what's inside the quote - cutting out the bits you don't want, etc.

ATB[/quote

See how this goes!

[smittysmitty]

Ahhh got it - I think. Now to try and remember it. Thanks Marcus


Cheers!

[Callisto]

[Hdts. 8.34] 'All the Boeotians had gone over to the enemy, and their towns were protected by Macedonians, sent by Alexander, to make it clear to Xerxes that the people of Boeotia were friendly to him.'

'Protected' or 'Guarded' amounts pretty much to the same thing.

In reality the original greek text of Herodotus uses the word "Esozon" which has the exact meaning of "Rescued/Saved" in English and not 'protected' or 'guarded' . I checked out Perseus.tufts.edu and its english translation uses 'safeguarded' which again fails to grasp the actual meaning of the word. I have to admit that I 've been a victim of forming an opinion based on a bad translation hence i prefer to spend more time to doublecheck original sources than getting for granted tuft, penguin and Loeb inconsistent translations.

[agesilaos]

I could not agree more, however, I don't think it makes any difference to Smiitty's point only to the degree of threat Xerxes posed to them. I still see it as Macedonian nobles acting as diplomats rarther than bodies of troops physically 'rescuing ' the cites, the Persians would surely bnot have tolerated action like that from a vassal state. Indeed later Xerxes sends Alexander to Athens to persuade them to medise, maybe his success in saving the Boeotian towns persuaded Xerxes of his diplomatic skills.

[Paralus]

Indeed later Xerxes sends Alexander to Athens to persuade them to medise, maybe his success in saving the Boeotian towns persuaded Xerxes of his diplomatic skills.

Ha ha haaa. Not often a "funny" gets told on this rather "stuffy" old forum!


Not berfore time.

[Paralus]

Regarding imperial ambition, Macedons territorial gains and expanse of kingdom was at its greatest under Alexander I. For newley acquired territories see Justin [7.4], Thucydides [2.99] and Herodotus [5.17]. It was only to be surpassed by Philip II and obviously his son Alexander. There was more than enough newly aquired land and indeed for the first time in Macedon's history, currency, to go around during the reign of Alexander I.

Crap Smitty. You may not have expressed yourself well, but, even given that there is no way that "Macedons territorial gains and expanse of kingdom was at its greatest under Alexander I". However you argue that position, it was a kingdom gifted by the King of Persia. Alexander gave "earth and water" to the Persian King who, when he visited Macedonia on his way to conquering Greece, didn't bother lingering (after the feast) to ensure the Macedonian's writ into the north and the west.

And, while he coined himself, it was Athenian/Corinthian currency that dominated the later part of Alexander's reign

[smittysmitty]

"'that there is no way that "Macedons territorial gains and expanse of kingdom was at its greatest under Alexander I".


And what's the basis for this conclusion? I have given you sources that tell us differently.

[smittysmitty]

However you argue that position, it was a kingdom gifted by the King of Persia. Alexander gave "earth and water" to the Persian King who, when he visited Macedonia on his way to conquering Greece, didn't bother lingering (after the feast) to ensure the Macedonian's writ into the north and the west.

and?

[smittysmitty]

And, while he coined himself, it was Athenian/Corinthian currency that dominated the later part of Alexander's reign[/quote]

Well I'm not certain about that - what is the basis of this conclusion?


I did like the "crap smitty" line though ; spoken like a true "Okka Mate " Fairdinkum!


Hey I just can't get these quote boxes working - anyhow I guess it's not that important.

Chers!

[smittysmitty]

Gee! I'm making a real mess of these posts lol . I promise I wont try using the quote reply tag in future. My apologise to the moderators for the multiple posts.