Pezhetairoi and phalangites

[agesilaos]

As long ago as 1973, in The Classical Quarterly, A B Bosworth pointed out that several of the mentions of pezhetairoi in Arrian were actually editors emendations of asthetairoi and that the MS reading should be retained (R Lane-Fox made a similar point at less length in the notes to his Alexander the Great ofthe same year). Rather than trouble the forum with the identity of the elusive asthetairoi I just thought it would be as well to question the now commonplace equation pezhetairos=normal phalangite.

Outside Arrian the word occurs in three authors, Demosthenes Olynthiac II, Theopompos preserved by Harpocration in a gloss on Demosthenes and Anaximenes also preserved in that gloss. The word also occurs in various lexica but their derivation seems to stem from Theopompos so reinforces his interpretation without supplying another rank of sources. The thing is Theopompos says that the pezhetairoi were an elite - epilektoi - not the general levy of Macedon.

Anaximenes on the other hand does say that they were the majority and attributes their naming to a King Alexander whom he also credits with creating the companion cavalry by teaching the Macedonians to ride! Clearly garbled.

In his article on Alexander's Army (Entretains Hardt, I think) R D Milns suggests the following development - Philip creates the pezhetairoi as an elite - Alexander on his accesion is in dire need of support and extends the name to the whole phalanx and renames the Guard Hypaspists. This certainly preserves the sources but is it not one gigantic over rationalisation? Was Alexander really so bereft of grass roots support? His one attested popularist move was to rescind certain taxes (Justin) surely a more certain way to mens hearts and minds. Not only that any extension ofthe Companionate would devalue the status of those already possessing it the very nobles whose support he may not have automatically commanded.

Restoring the MS reading there remain but three instances of Arrian using the word (I 28 ii seq – the battle of Termessos; VII 2 i – the story of visiting Diogenes at Corinth; and VII 11 iii in a list of Macedonian units which were being duplicated in the native army). Paul Goukowsky in an informative article Makedonika in Revue des Etudes Grecques points out that at the Telmessos battle it makes nonsense of Alexander's capabilities as a commander to have him deploy the whole phalanx on broken and precipitous ground against the forces of one Pisidian town, he notes also that the left wing is commanded by none of the marshals but by an Amyntas who is normally found leading light troops. The troops we find on missions like this with lights are the Hypaspists.

Is it likely that Alexander would turn up with his whole infantry force to see Diogenes, or more likely he was accompanied by his usual guard?

VII 11 iii is moot as this is merely a list of the technichal terms Arrian has found and not as Goukowsky and others think something he found in his sources - the mention of both Hypaspists and Silver Sheilds demonstrates this.

So where does that leave us? With Pezhetairoi being synonymous with the Hypaspisai or at least a sub-division therof, a body one would expect to enjoy the Companionship of the King not only as his Guard but as the sons of the great barons. Alexander more stable at the time of his accession vis-a-vis the masses than Milns suggests and a properly stratified army hierarchy reflecting the societal structure with a restricted ,rather than general, Companionate. An Ancient Monarchy rather than a Socialist paradise of equality and tolerance.

Chairete

[smittysmitty]

G'day Karl,

An interesting post as per usual, however I feel you dismiss Anaximenes of Lampsacus too easily. IMO the reforms of both pezhetairoi and companion cavalry can only be attributed to Alexander I and it is to this monarch Anaximenes alludes to.




cheers!

[agesilaos]

The trouble with Alexander I being the author of any infantry reform is that there is no attested useful infantry in the kingdom until Archelaios. Thucydides is explicit that the kingdom under Perdikkas possessed no useful footmen.

[smittysmitty]

The introduction of the pezetaroi and expansion of the companionship spoken about by Anixmenes reflects an event of political orientation rather than some serious refurbishment of the military. The ability, or performance of such troops should not be seen as an indicator of when and where such reforms took place.

Having said that, Thucydides' account of Macedon's infantry - through the rhetoric of Brasidas - remains highly suspicious, to say the least.

During the Persian wars we find Macedonians acting as protectorates of Boeotian towns and at Plataea were in a position to face the opposing Athenians and Spartan's jockying for position. What ever we may think of Macedons military, at the very least it presented as some sort oforganised body.

As for the reign of Perdiccas, we find in addition to his army of subjects he had a force of hoplites from the Hellenes living in Macedonia. That Thucydides makes no mention of Macedonian hoplites with Perdiccas should not infer they did not exist. We find the Macedonians from the upper canton of Lyncus fielded hoplites - leaving me to believe it unlikely that Perdiccas did not also have native hoplites in his service.

However this may be, the important point is not the arming, performance, etc, of the infantry - rather the the pezetairoi's establishment has more significant political overtones.

Cheers!

[agesilaos]

My recollection of the lines at Plataea was that the Spartans faced the Medes and Persians, the Athenians the medizing Greeks. The Macedonians participated in the cavalry raid in the rear lines along with Theban cavalry but There is no mention of their infantry, nor, when Mardonius was clearly unencumbering himself of the least efficient parts of the army can one see him retaining them.

The Lyncestian hoplites I should remember but 'hoplite' need not imply the full panoply nor any cohesion, I believe Diodorus uses the term of the Illyrians and Arrian definitely does of Indians.

The problem with a Macedonian hoplite force comparable to that of the Greek States is that the political class which composed it did not exist until Philip, the use of the coastal Greek forces was contigent on their agreement and, in any case it is the native infantry Anaximenes is talking about.

I agree it was a political move but the scope of it affects its purpose and indeed its efficacy.

chaire

[smittysmitty]

'The problem with a Macedonian hoplite force comparable to that of the Greek States is that the political class which composed it did not exist until Philip'



Why does it need to be comparable to that of the Greek city states?, and I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by political class and its significance?

In any case I agree, Herodotus does not mention Macedonian infantry, nor for that matter, if I remember correctly does he speak of Macedonian cavalrly at Plataea. But yes, I am inclined to agree that Macedonian cavalry more than likely assisted the Boetian cavalry in shielding the fleeing Persians and their allies. However I would not rule out the presence of Macedonian infantry in the frontline.

As to full panalopy and the cohesiveness of Lynkestian hoplites - well make of it as you will. Point being, Thucydides obviously felt their was a difference between your average joe blow and what he calls hoplites.



cheers!

[marcus]

In any case I agree, Herodotus does not mention Macedonian infantry, nor for that matter, if I remember correctly does he speak of Macedonian cavalrly at Plataea. But yes, I am inclined to agree that Macedonian cavalry more than likely assisted the Boetian cavalry in shielding the fleeing Persians and their allies. However I would not rule out the presence of Macedonian infantry in the frontline.

At the time of Plataea, the Macedonians were nominally Persian subjects, as Alexander I had submitted earth and water to the Persians as they passed through Macedonia. That is why there were no Macedonians in the Greek army at Plataea.

However, when it was clear that things were going badly for the Persians, Alexander did make overtures to the Greeks, assuring them that he was on their side really. Whether that actually means that he supplied any cavalry, I can't remember; but there weren't any Macedonians (unless there were a few exiles who fought in other lines) in the Greek lines at Plataea.

ATB

[smittysmitty]

Sorry Marcus, I was perhaps a bit unclear about Macedon's invovement at Plataea.

What Herodotus tells us is that contingents of the Macedonians were placed on the left wing of the Persian line - opposite the Athenians. What is in question is what was the composition of these contingents. Were they cavalry, infantry or combination of both?




cheers!

[marcus]

Sorry Marcus, I was perhaps a bit unclear about Macedon's invovement at Plataea.

What Herodotus tells us is that contingents of the Macedonians were placed on the left wing of the Persian line - opposite the Athenians. What is in question is what was the composition of these contingents. Were they cavalry, infantry or combination of both?

Ah, got it.

Problem is - I don't know. I expect they were probably infantry, but I have no way of corroborating that. Sorry!

ATB

[agesilaos]

OK I have checked through Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon - Herodotus does say that the Macedonians acted as 'Guardians' for the cities of Boeotia but they read more like individual officers than garissons, they protect them by letting the Persians know that the cities have medized. At Plataea the Macedonians are indeed listed opposite the Athenians my inclination is to see them as cavalry but the text is not explicit - the maceedonians must have supplied a small contingent since they are not even described in the adumbration of the troops at Abydos, more the pity for us.

The Lyncestian hoplites present a different problem but the description of the forces facing Brasidas after defeating them and Perdikkas flight points to them being of the same low-calibre as the Macedonians proper of whom he states they possessed no worthwhile infantry until Archelaos reformed their arms and organisation.

Throughout the Hellenica Xenophon mentions Macedonian cavalry but no infantry although it cannot be said his coverage is exhaustive.

The class point is that in order to possess a panoply and have the liesure for drill a man has to be quite wealthy as the small-holders of southern Greece were. In Macedonia the system was more akin to Sparta with an elite subsisting on the labour of a peasant population only this elite used its wealth to become a cavalry force which was more useful for chasing off marauders from Thrace or Illyria than a slow moving foot force.

[smittysmitty]

[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. It seems a peculiar form of expression to apply on unaccompanied individual officers fulfilling this role. It may have been a token gesture, but I think it may have been recorded differently had that been the case. Or at least that's my take on this passage.

The catalogue of troops at Abydos reflects the Asiatic component of Xerxes' army crossing the Hellespont and has no reflection on Macedon's miltary commitment, quality or size. Regarding the European allies of Persia, Herodotus [9.32] says the following;

'The strength of the infantry furnished by the Thracians, Paeonians, Eordi, Bottiaei, Chalcidians, Brygi, Pierians, Macedonians, Perrhaebians, Enionians, Dolopes, Magnetes, Achaeans and the coastal settlements of Thrace, I would put at 300,000.'

Interestingly, Herodotus makes a point of claiming these European forces were infantry

Regarding the cataloging of the Persian line at Plataea, Herodotus [9.32] say's;

'I have named here the most efficient and important of the various national contingents which Mardonius put into the line on this occasion;'

furthermore, he goes on to say a few lines later; 'All the above mentioned troops which were put into the line were infantrymen; the cavalry formed a seperate unit.'


Regarding Thucydide's account of the Macedonian infantry - well, as I said earlier, I find the whole Brasida's story very suspicious. The quote on Archelaus's reforms is interesting isn't it! I see this as no more than a refurbishment of the existing military which obviously put it in a better position than it had ever been before. No more, no less.

Unfortunately the whole discussion has veered away to aspects of miltary quality, worth numbers and whatever else. As said earlier, these aspects have little to do with the institution of the pezhetairoi.

[smittysmitty]

Wow!, I must apologise for the appearance of my last post Karl, I thought I would experiment with the bold and italic tags - gee I don't like the look of the effect at all. All seems rather offensive. If I knew how to undo these things I would - unfortunately I don't.

My apologise in advance.

cheers!

[amyntoros]

Wow!, I must apologise for the appearance of my last post Karl, I thought I would experiment with the bold and italic tags - gee I don't like the look of the effect at all. All seems rather offensive. If I knew how to undo these things I would - unfortunately I don't.

Hi Smitty,

When you log on you should see an "edit" button on the top right of any post that you have made. Click on it and it will take you to a window showing the complete text of your post. You'll see little bracketed symbols around all the bold and italic words. For instance there'll be an at the beginning and end of every word in italics. Just remove them and hit "submit".

Btw, your post really doesn't look that bad, but I thought I'd post this info for future reference.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

The Lyncestian hoplites present a different problem but the description of the forces facing Brasidas after defeating them and Perdikkas flight points to them being of the same low-calibre as the Macedonians proper of whom he states they possessed no worthwhile infantry until Archelaos reformed their arms and organisation…

... In Macedonia the system was more akin to Sparta with an elite subsisting on the labour of a peasant population only this elite used its wealth to become a cavalry force which was more useful for chasing off marauders from Thrace or Illyria than a slow moving foot force.

Thucydides is rather straightforward – not to say pointed – with respect to the merits (or lack thereof) of Macedonian infantry during the fifth century. Regardless of the point he may be making, the observation is both cogent and correct. The results of Macedonian engagements against hoplite levies are rather lopsidedly in favour of the historian's assessment.

The key here, to Agesilaos' points, is Archelaus' reforms. Aside from noting that Archelaus' reforms encompassed the building of roads and fortresses throughout the country, he notes also Archelaus' "…arming of the infantry and equipment in general so as to put the country in a better position…" (II.100). He does, though, give more credit to Macedonian cavalry operations where he describes them as "excellent horsemen and armed with breastplates". This made then difficult to stand up to. It may also be a pointer to their use at Plataea?

What it does illustrate, beyond any doubt, was the nature of the Macedonian "horse-ocracy" (for want of a better term).These were indeed landed barons supported by a serf population. Which population, it seems, needed to be armed should they be used as infantry. The reforms of Philip would later open this up and expand upon it. In essence, though, its core would not change: both Macedonian conquerors (Philip and Alexander) would expand that ruling class by dispersing the "king's land" - complete with servile populations to work it so as to supply the appropriate revenues - to their "companions" and retired veterans (particularly in Asia). By the time of Alexander, this was near enough to a Macedonian Lebensraum in the east.

Interestingly, and slightly off the point, Thucydides actually states (or has Hermocrates of Syracuse and the Corinthians in Sparta in 431 state) that the Persians lost the war against Greece due to a lack of supplies (which Alexander I mentions to the Athenians at Plataea) and their own mistakes. He also notes that the Persians did not possess greater numbers than the Greeks.

That is a lonely place for a Greek historian to be.

[agesilaos]

Careless reading of Herodotos.

All the same these considerations are beside the point, despite being interesting; did Alexander I extend the 'companionate' to the majority of the Macedonian infantry? I think not and that alone shows enough confusion in the Anaxamines, nor can we seperate the claim that this Alexander accustomed the Macedonians to ride, and as this thread demonstrates they were good cavalry by the time of Perdikkas and probably earlier, so Miln's fudge won't do. Since this is the only evidence that 'pezhetairoi' refers to the commonality of the phalanx rather than an elite as stated by Theopompos should we not stop referring to them as such? It may just be that the ordinary troops were called 'hoplites' as they are in the first two books of Arrian and that this does not stem from Ptolemy copying Kallisthenes (though would back the latter interpretation myself).

Have no fear of causing offence Smitty where I am careless it is justified criticism and where not water off a pope's back.

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