Post by agesilaos » Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:00 pm
I tend to think that when you simply cite another’s work as supporting your argument that work becomes relevant, however if you want to isolate the parts you actually mean support your POV by all means discuss the rest elsewhere. Conversely, you might choose the points to start with rather than cite whole articles and then classify discussion of them as an irrelevant digression.
I was not ‘citing’ Hammond as such and I didn’t quote him, as one normally would when ‘citing’, merely pointing out that his views were similar to mine – and in any case that doesn’t mean I wish to embark on a ‘digression’ regarding him or his article......that way lies the huge distraction of the ‘Decourt digression’ elsewhere.
Upon the death of Alexander, rebellions broke out all over his fragile Empire. As I mentioned above, this whole area of southeast Anatolia was never actually conquered by Alexander. For example, Alexander’s original appointed Satrap, Balacrus the Somatophylax was killed campaigning in the area, and in the north of the region, Ariarthes the Persian Satrap ruled on in Cappadocia where he made a nuisance of himself by raiding the trunk roads from West to East. It would take Perdiccas the Regent and the might of the whole Royal army to destroy him in 322 BC so that Eumenes could take up his appointment as Satrap. [Diod XVIII.16 ff; Justin 13.6; Arrian frag. I.11; Plutarch Eumenes III.12-14 etc]. Perdiccas then moves on to Pisidia and destroys two rebel cities of the Isaurians [Diod XVIII.2.2], and in 321 is found in Cilicia, still presumably stamping out the embers of rebellion.
Here he decides to go to Egypt to attack Ptolemy ( with well known disastrous results for him), leaving Neoptolemus and Alcetas to guard the Hellespont and Asia minor. Both had Macedonian troops, likely the 4,000 veterans formerly of Craterus. The area was still in revolt as late as 319, with the Pisidians fighting an ongoing guerrilla war.
We are well informed about the various risings at Alexander’s death, they are the attempted defection of the Greek settlers in the Upper Satrapies, dealt with by Peithon, and the Lamian War along with the Rhodian expulsion of their garrison and the Odrysian Rising. Not a mention of trouble in Asia Minor; Perdikkas attacked Ariarathes to bring that kingdom into the Empire and it is this land that Diodoros characterises thus.
On the contrary, I don’t think we are well-informed at all about uprisings etc on the death of Alexander – save that they ran from Greece in the west, to India in the east. Most are understandably ‘played down’ in our sources. However, in the Anatolian region, Armenia maintained its independence under its Persian ruler Orontes, and would continue to do so (Orontes had led his numerous Armenian cavalry against Alexander at Gaugamela [Arrian III.8.5]). Pisidia was hostile to Alexander, who took one city, Sagalassos on the main road, but failed to take Termessos [333BC] and didn’t attempt other places. The Pisidians killed his appointed Satrap, the Somatophylax Balacrus, and resumed their independence. Alcetus, brother of Perdiccas would woo them as allies against Antigonus, and after his death they continued guerrilla warfare [Diod XVIII.47.2] Alexander by-passed Cappadocia, and it continued to be independent, ruled by Ariarathes as Persian Satrap, and then King ( his descendants would rule Cappadocia down to the 1st C BC.). When Perdiccas attempted to impose Eumenes as ruler, Ariarathes not unnaturally resisted. Cilicia consisted of the smallish coastal plain, and inland a larger mountainous region called ‘Rough Cilicia’ inhabited by independent tribal clans. Alexander quickly passed through it, anxious to secure the Cilician gates, but left a garrison at the hostile town of Soli, later removed. He did briefly mount one expedition into ‘Rough Cilicia’, lasting less than a week. Arrian [II.5-6] says:“
...he marched against those of the Cilicians who were holding the hills/mountains. Some he drove from their positions, others he reached a composition/agreement with and within a week he was back in Soli...” or in other words, the mountain clans melted away at his approach as all good guerrillas do, and those who could not ‘submitted’. All doubtless resumed their life of brigandage as soon as Alexander moved on. It is fair to say that Alexander did not so much ‘conquer’ or ‘subdue’ eastern Asia minor as pass through it. The expedition under Neoptolemus against Armenia and its numerous cavalry and soldiers was a failure, and the troops became restive and mutinous and even the intervention of Eumenes availed little. Armenia was still independent and ruled by Orontes in 317 BC.
From the above it is evident that there is a darn sight more than “a mention of trouble” in Asia minor – the whole area was actively hostile against the Macedonians.
To Eumenes he gave Paphlagonia and Cappadocia and all the lands bordering on these, which Alexander did not invade, having been prevented from doing so by the urgency of his affairs when he was finishing the war with Darius; Diod.XVIII 3 i
There is no hint of your ‘…he made a nuisance of himself by raiding the trunk roads from West to East.’ In the sources, rather it is a war of Perdikkas’ making.
As can be seen from the above, the highlanders of Pisidia, Cilicia and Cappadocia all made a living from brigandage, and the juiciest target was commerce moving along the East-West roads.
Alexander passed through and subjugated both Pisidia and Kilikia, the latter very thoroughly during the lead up to Issos, so your clams just don’t stand up.
That assertion is totally incorrect. Neither Pisidia nor Cilicia was ‘subjugated’ at all, let alone ‘thoroughly. This area was largely independent right down to Roman times. ( also see above for the actual state of S.E. Anatolia)
Laranda and Isauria were simply strongholds of mountain brigands, in which capacity the Isaurians became famous. Diodoros’ note on Balakros XVIII 22 i
Laranda was more than just a ‘stronghold’, it was a major city[polis] of the area. Isaura too was a substantial strongly fortified city[polis] at the foot of Mt Taurus, and was not easy to capture. [Diod XVIII.22 ff].
And having arrived in Pisidia, they determined to lay waste two cities, that of the Larandians and that of the Isaurians; for while Alexander was still alive these cities had put to death Balacrus the son of Nicanor, who had been appointed general and satrap
So the enemy were only these two cities and far from having been killed campaigning Balakros was most likely kidnapped and executed, there is no evidence of a rebellion in Kilikia nor any opposition in Pisidia beyond these two cities. In fact the Pisidians remained loyal to the Perdikkan cause, supporting Alketas in defiance of Antigonos’ overwhelming force (until wiser and older heads prevailed).
Most of Pisidia was opposed to the Macedonians, and had been since Alexander’s time [Arrian I.29], though some took Alexander’s side against old rivals. The Pisidians allied with Alcetas against Antigonus on the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle, and continued to oppose the Macedonians after Alcetas’ death in a lengthy guerilla war. [Diod XVIII.47.2]
(small digression: In order to surprise Alcetas, Antigonus undertook a celebrated forced march from Cappadocia to Cretopolis in Pisidia, over 7 days and nights, averaging over 40 miles per day across the rough mountainous terrain of the Taurus range.)
Neoptolemos had already been left in Armenia with his Macedonians who must have been from the Royal army.
I rather doubt that assertion, not least because it is unevidenced.. Your proposed use by Perdiccas and the ‘Royal army’ of the Persian ‘Royal Road’ is not very likely for a number of reasons. Although no-one is sure of the exact route of the Royal Road ( no two maps show the same route!), it ran north of the Tigris and then straight into Armenia – held by a hostile Persian, Orontes, with his thousands of cavalry and troops, and thence on to Cappadocia. Not only that, but that route, involving heading north from Babylon to the Tigris ( the Royal road did not run via Babylon), thence along its north bank to Armenia and thence Cappadocia is some 20-25% longer than the more direct route direct from Babylon up the Euphrates and through Cilicia.
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.
I said “Craterus had been delayed in Cilicia on his march home, probably because of some local trouble or rebellion.” [p.1 Nov 16] There must have been some reason Craterus and his army of 11,500 veterans ( including the cavalry) paused in Cilicia for so long. If it was not to pacify the tribes and clans of ‘Rough Cilicia/Cilicia Tracheia’ ( as Alexander so signally failed to do ), then it it was probably to use the plain of ‘flat Cilicia/Cilicia Pedias’ against other rebels in the general area.
Doubtless Macedonian Royal princesses would have had a substantial escort, which explains why they were untroubled by brigands or hostile natives, and it certainly does not indicate “the generally peaceful nature of Asia minor”, the East of which was in considerable foment and uproar, as we have seen.
Troops recruited in ‘Greater Macedon’ which incorporated the former Thrace were not necessarily ‘Makedone’ citizens of the phalanx ( a decided minority) or even ethnically Macedonian. The majority would have been Thracian for example.
Having invented a rebellion in Kilikia you now forget the actual rebellion that was underway under Seuthes in Thrace, nor did ‘Greater Macedonia’ exist, this is a post WWII construct, Macedonia and Thrace were separate entities and had separate Satraps. Diodoros is clear, XVIII 14 v,
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.
Philip’s conquests included a substantial part of Thrace, and a large Thracian population. ( which for convenience I referred to as ‘Greater Macedonia’, a term I thought I had made up.) Seuthes rebellion did not encompass all of Thrace, or even Macedonian Thrace. It seems to have involved only his own Odrysian tribe. As I said, having crossed the Bosporus into Macedonian territory, most of the population were Thracian, and many would have likely been recruited - as many scholars postulate.
He crossed over, therefore, into Europe and went on to Macedonia, where he enlisted many additional Macedonian soldiers. When he had gathered together in all more than twenty thousand infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry, he led them through Thessaly against the enemy
.
He crossed into Europe marched into Macedonia and raised Macedonian troops; it does not get much clearer than that.
I don’t dispute that – indeed I referred to it myself. Except you seem to have mixed up your Macedonians, for this was Leonnatus, not Craterus. And for reasons I won’t digress into, by far the bulk of his 20,000 foot must have been non-Macedonian, with only a few thousand ‘Makedone’ phalangites.
You seem to not understand the structure of Macedonian society. There were only two classes, other than slaves, the equestrian nobility the hetairoi and their followers and the general populace for whom we have no name all owed the King armed service and enjoyed limited ‘rights’ and were ‘Makedones’. The reservoir of potential phalangites was vast as that was how the majority of the population would serve, there being no native psiloi
.
On the contrary, it is you who have grossly over-simplified Macedonian society. It included ethnic Macedonians (not all of whom were Makedones, as the existence of non-Makedone ‘Macedonian archers’ proves – whoops native psiloi !), not to mention all the grooms and servants who were clearly not citizens – and that’s just the army. Macedonian society was multi-cultural and included in addition Greeks, Illyrians, Molossians, Thracians and sundry other ethnic groups. We don’t know the population figures, nor what fraction were citizens/Makedones, as I have related - which every scholar I can think of agrees.. We do know the reservoir of phalangites was far from ‘vast’, the maximum number on service ever, being 28,000 or so at the death of Alexander, which left Macedon short of citizens ( see ante and [Diod XVIII.12.2])
40,000 foot at Krannon were heavy armed and largely Macedonian, it would seem as she had no allies to provide heavy foot and the mercenaries seem to have sided with their home states.
I have already explained why this not possible (page 1 post Nov 15 ), and given a reasonable estimate of the number of Macedonian ‘phalangites’ present – about 20-22,000. What is your evidence that mercenaries deserted the Macedonian army to side with their home states and Macedon had no allies - Greeks were not the only potential allies, nor did all the Greeks unify against Macedon, or to use a term you seem fond of, did you just ‘invent’ that ? 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] (Also, ‘pezoi’ can have the generic meaning of ‘army’ [LSJ], though probably not in this instance where archers, slingers and cavalry are mentioned separately.)
; after Kretopolis, Alketas retires with his hypaspists and pages (Diod. 18.45.3). We then find Eumenes has his own as well as the Silver Shields. We might also note that these players all have a cavalry guard (agema) and pages as well. It would seem that all the generals might have hypaspists, pages and a cavalry agema but neither Philip III nor his regent, Polyperchon. We do know that Alexander IV had syntrophoi (Diod. 19.52.4) and Philip III had somatophylakes. I find your reasoning unpersuasive. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On the whole, it is far more likely that Macedonian royal tradition was followed as the evidence which we do have indicates. 
