pothos.org

agesilaos wrote: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.

The earlier stubborn hostility of Thespians and Plateans against Persians had put into serious threat the entirety of Boeotian cities. Xerxes's troops while passing from Boeotia destroyed Thespiae, Plataea - evenif they were anymore empty of their inhabitants - and the same fate had Haliartus. Alexander I, we could say somehow prevented the rest from facing the same fate. It was Mardonius, not Xerxes who sent Alexander to Athens but the reason was that Alexander posed at the time being, the best candidate for the job. He was related to Persians through the marriage of his sister to Bubares and he was highly esteemed in Athens, carrying the titles of Proxenos and Euergetes. His assistance several months earlier in Tempe had been also appreciated by Athenians and the requirement of timber for the naval program of Themistocles made him even more valuable to Athens as Macedonia was one of the few places which could provide it.

Callisto wrote:His assistance several months earlier in Tempe had been also appreciated by Athenians and the requirement of timber for the naval program of Themistocles made him even more valuable to Athens as Macedonia was one of the few places which could provide it.

Ah yes, one of the main reasons for Athens' continued meddling in Macedonian affairs was timber. Athens spent most of the fifth century bullying, pummeling and ocasionally aiding Macedonian monarchs so as to keep them milling timber on behalf of her dockyards. It was the reason ( a secondary being the not so negligable mining interests in the hinterland) for her founding of Amphipolis, a city which - particularly during the fourth century - took on the status of a drug addiction in terms of her foreign policy.

In that regard, Alexander I was simply the first in a timbered conga line of Macedonian Athenian suitors.

Paralus, mate! what are you doing up at this hour - its 10 past three in the morning. Unfortunately I've still got another 4 hours of work to go.

Anyway nice to know your around.


I somehow think you've got a clouded view of fifith century Macedon - it really wasn't as weak as many modern commentators would have us believe. Alexand I was tha MAN! if wasn't for him - this forum probably wouldn't exist today. LoL

Maybe a bit of an overstatement - but he was quite a significant player in the scheme of things. You seem to confuse Thrace a lot with Macedon during this period. Perhaps your thinking of fourth century Macedonian expansion.

Anyhow - i've got to do a few things now.

Cheers!

Yes, indeed mate. A good question Smitty. Christmas dinners, bottles of Greek red at the best Greek restaurant this side of Sestos and booking express trains from Frankfurt airport to Freiburg. At three in the morning.

Better go check that ticket: who knows what in blazers I bloodywell booked?

I most likely have too Thucydidean a view, definitely too Greek-centric. I've no great problem with Alexander I outside of the fact that I don't believe the state was that strong.

Thrace and confusion? You're lucky I didn't conflate Macedonia and Marseilles! I suspect that comes from the Amphipolis reference? That was simply to demonstrate the timber/resources point. No, it wasn't part of Macedonia, it lies in the Thraceward region that Philip (for the same reasons) would make a first outside priority in the 350s. Athens' aims were no different.

God my head hurts…….

By the way, nothing like these Gernmans. Speak to them on the 'phone and after a - I'm certain - polite Germanic greeting, straight into English once one's Anglo tones are heard!

I've a problem, though, with the fact that I now receive emails from a "Fahrkaten Service" and that the heading above my train type is "Fahrt".

As Smitty will know only too well, in this country it is we that decide "who will fahrkat this country; and how they will fahrkat!"

Nothing to do with the thread, but, what the hey? It's Christmas and.....by the Gods, this Becks beer is alright.

Better get accustomed methinks....

regarding some earlier comments about the Plataia battle, the political/military events which took part before

Indeed the Macedonians were placed in the same flank with the medised Thessalians, Boiotians, Pierians and Perrabaians. However I dont recall reading anything about them taking part in the charge of the Theban cavalry (as mentioned somewhere) against the disorganised Megarians and Fliountians. Actually the Macedonian king had practically changed sides before the battle began hoping thant if the Greek alliance won they would help him get rid of the Persians back home. The Thebans had a really good cause to fight for in Plataia and that was the survival of their very own homeland which would lie under direct threat if the Athenian-Peloponnesian front would be victorious in Plataia. Thebai city themselves were spared from destruction after the Spartan intervention....that occured just for the simple reason that the Spartans were afraid that with Thebes destroyed, the Athenians would take advantage and become too strong too soon. So the Thebans got away only with the 2 leaders of the medised party of the city executed and with the Boiotian "Koinon" (league) dissolved. On the other hand judging from the attitude of the Macedonian king and general, the Macedonians would benefit from any outcome of the battle since they were cleaverly negotiating with both sides!

Had the Persians won the battle, the macs would upgrade their role in Paionia (who resisted the Persians), in Thrace and in Hellas. Had the Greeks fighting for the "greek cause" won, then the macs would get rid of the eastern occupation without any cost for them. That means they didnt have to give their best in the battle risking their lives, unlikely the Thebans who didn fought for their lives just outside their yards and were desperate to win. Moreover they were acting as some kind of intermediate so that the Boiotian cities (except Plataia and Thespiai which were Athenian and Spartan loyal allies respectable) were not harmed and also they were unsuccessfully trying to allure the Athenians in order to ally with Mardonios. That wasnt not achieved by military strenght of course but diplomatically.Alexander son of Amyntas was a political animal himself and a very ambitious and capable individual.

...although there are many info about the composition and the equipement of the Macedonian army of later times, few is known at the time of the "greco-persian" wars.
The Macedonian army should had fielded light infantry and skirmishers in Plataia as well. It seems to me that only the aristocracy was fighting on horseback, although there isnt any direct reference for this at the time. The cavalry was probable used to fight in coordination with the light infantry which backed them in many ways (somthing similar I guess with some fast moving non phalanx infantry units and "cavalry assistants" of Macedonian armies of later ages). We also know that the cavalry Macedon could field limited numbers since when Sitalkes invaded Macedonia with the encouragement of the Athenians, Thoukydides states that the Macedonians based their defence in their good quality cavalry or in withdrawing in the cities to be besieged by the enemy. Their cavalry was better than the Thracian one but much fewer in numbers. And maybe thats an indication that only the nobles could afford fighting mounted. Regarding their "nice breasts/cuirasses" I m not sure if Thouk had in mind any fancy looking cuirass. Actually the word he uses is "tethorakismenos" meaning "protected by cuirass". It doesnt provide any info about the material the cuirass was made or its style. Somebody could assume that since the cavalry constisted of wealthy macedonians, they could afford good quality cuirasses. However judging from all the neighbouring people, Thessalians, Thracians and Illyrians whose contemporary horsemen didnt seem to wear any heavy cuirasses made of metal (well with the exception of the king and generals themselves who usually imported such cuirasses from Hellas for themselves) I think that the Macedonian cavalry shouldnt be much different. Anyway that cavalry was superior to the Thracian one which was most likely composed by just mounted peltastai.


Those two Macedonian coins are aged around the lates 6th cent and the mids of 5th cent. The horsemen look much alike contemporary Thessalian horsemen depicted in pottery. They wear a kind of cloak and a petassoid helmet or hat. They bear two spears which are similar to the kamax spears suitable for fighting on horseback. Its not visible if they wear any cuirass at all. The horse itself doesnt seem to be protected by any "prometopis" or "episternidion"



The first important cavalry reforms we know came from the Thessalian Jason of Pherai (lates 5th cent) who used the "rhombus" formation and upgraded the cavalryneb defensive and offensive equipement. Until then the vast majority of the Thessalian and Boiotian cavalry wasnt heavily armoured. Jason lived later than Perdikkas but the Thessalian cavalry didnt consist only by the aristocracy. Even the "penestai" who were a similar caste with the helots of Laconia sometimes fought on horseback. We also know that Jason, whose state could field thousand of horsemen in the battlefield, had allied with the Macedonian and the Molossian king. Its uncertain however if the Thessalians copied the "heavy" cavalry from the Macedonians or vice versa.

The infantry could be armed with bows and javelins which the Macedonians used in their every day lives for hunting. Its uncertain if they were equiped with small "pelta" style shields since only the Thracians are recorded using such shields at the time...maybe they used hides and animal skins instead of decent shields

The light infantry seems to have been reformed in a kind of "hoplite copies" at the time of the reign of Archelaos. I guess they were not protected by heavy armour but resembled the Lacedaimonian outfit of the time. (simple "pilos" helmet, no armour, just the large hoplon shield which makes them hoplites)...well thats a speculation but there are not any real info available

---

the requirement of timber for the naval program of Themistocles made him even more valuable to Athens as Macedonia was one of the few places which could provide it.

It was not only the Athenians who seek timber in Macedonia for their triremes but also Histiaios of Miletos and I think Polycrates of Samos earlier as well. The resources of Macedonia were invaluable, lets not forget the silver mines, the gold mines in Paggaion, the grain and the by land grain routes to Thrace ect

paniskos wrote:The first important cavalry reforms we know came from the Thessalian Jason of Pherai (lates 5th cent) who used the "rhombus" formation and upgraded the cavalryneb defensive and offensive equipement. Until then the vast majority of the Thessalian and Boiotian cavalry wasnt heavily armoured. Jason lived later than Perdikkas but the Thessalian cavalry didnt consist only by the aristocracy. Even the "penestai" who were a similar caste with the helots of Laconia sometimes fought on horseback. We also know that Jason, whose state could field thousand of horsemen in the battlefield, had allied with the Macedonian and the Molossian king.t

G'day Paniskos.

Jason of Pherae rose to a rather startling prominence sometime late in the first quarter of the fourth century. The extant source material is not exactly replete with information, though, we do know that he was "Tagus" or "general" of a large part of Thessaly in or about 374. Yes he is argued to have trained and re-armed the Thessalian cavalry and there is also considerable argument as to whether or not he was, at this time, an ally of Athens and her second "Confederacy". The fact that he was allied with Thebes at the time of Leuktra would likely throw doubt on that. He is said to have stopped the Thebans -- after Leuktra -- from assaulting the Spartan camp and annihilating that which survived of the Peloponnesian army. A pleasure he no doubt wished to have to himself when he realised his dreams of becoming the Philip before Philip.

One suspects great sighs of relief issued forth from Thebes and Athens at the news of his assassination in 370.

greetings to u as well "Paralus" (sea-side was the selection of that nick a coincidence or u have something specific in mind?)''

Didnt Jason sometime in the 400s? (lates of 5th cent)
He became tagos (it means "leader" and its related to the verb "ago" meaning "to lead") a little later but the date of his living was correct in the first place

Paralus wrote: we do know that he was "Tagus" or "general" of a large part of Thessaly in or about 374..

Regarding the tagoi my impression is they were both political and military leaders (that means most likely a tagos is a general as well) . At first they were elected but at the time of Jason the title had almost become inherited from father to son or to however survived the assasinations. I moreover do recall both from herodotos and thoukydides that they mention the Thessalian leaders as "kings". The Thessalian generals during the Persian wars are members of the "Aleuadai" family. The Aleuadai were the tagoi of Larissa and seemed to control most of the Thessalian cities until the tagoi of Pherai put that monopoly to an end for a short time. Well that didnt make the former tagoi happy and tried to present them as tyrants. Unfortunately for the Pherai the behavior of another ruler who came from the city, Alexander was his name and he was a wild individual, offered some arguments extra arguments for that case...

Thats about the tagoi and Jason, but I still wonder about who introduced the use of the heavy cavalry in mainland Hellas. Was it first the Thessalians or the Macedonians?
We do know that the Italian Greeks like the Tarantines, the Syracusians and those from Gela city used heavy cavalry in the battlefield at least since the beginnings of 5th cent but few is known about the others....the charge of the Theban cavalry in Plataia is maybe the first one recorded but it seems that charge was opportunist, circumstancial and desperate. Normally the horsemen were not supposed to directly charge against disciplined heavy infantry.

paniskos wrote:greetings to u as well "Paralus" :wink: (sea-side :?: was the selection of that nick a coincidence or u have something specific in mind?)''

Ahh, the avatar should give that one away. In a moment of inspired mediocrity, I decided that the Paralus, the Athenian ship of state – which carried,along with sister ship the Salaminia, Athens' diplomatic traffic (and most anything else of note including the general Konon after the Aegespotami disaster with the shocking news) – would perfectly suit my round-a-bout, indirect and diplomatic style.

paniskos wrote: At first they were elected but at the time of Jason the title had almost become inherited from father to son or to however survived the assasinations. I moreover do recall both from herodotos and thoukydides that they mention the Thessalian leaders as "kings".

I think, though, that by the time of Jason of Pherae, the position had indeed become one of a "tyrant". Tyrant, of course, in the Greek sense. In fact, he seems to have started the trend that would see Philip intervening "on behalf" of the weaker Larrissans against the Pherae tyrants. As per usual, he took a wife as a result. Or did not depending upon how one reads the material. He certainly made use of her hoplites.

As to Jason and the fifth century, he was definitely a fourth century player. That, of course, is not to say he was not born in the fifth century. In all likelyhood, given that most Greeks did not rise to postions of influence until their thirties/forties, he may well have been born around the time of the Sicilian disaster or after.

paniskos wrote: Normally the horsemen were not supposed to directly charge against disciplined heavy infantry.

And, I'd wager you'd have a very difficult time getting one to do so. I don't believe they readily did.

The argument over who initiated the changes that lead to "heavy" cavalry goes on. Certainly Philip found the Thessalian cavalry and the associated league rather indispensable. The argument is rather like that which ebbs and flows over the Peace of Kallias in the previous century: 460s or 450/49? In the end you take a position on the available evidence (449 in my opinion). I have a leaning to the Thessalians, but, that reference to Macedonian cavalry and breastplates in Thucydides is like a mosquito in the dead of night.

Just promoted to remind Paralus that it was here I had discussed this