The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[PMBardunias]

Maybe in more poetic writing it could be, but considering that there was a regiment already called "Silver Shields," I see no reason to take their name as anything other than literal..

I thought the "silver" referred to the actual precious metal (Fittings?) not the color. Doesn't Curtius say something like that? Wasn't there a "gold" shields unit as well?

I've thought about it in the past, and I suspect that the oval peltae depicted on the Kazanluk tomb paintings possess a very similar system (one looser strap at each extremity and a double strap grip in the middle) so that they could have employed like a series of porpakes to allow the bearer to use a rhomphaia with both hands. That shield type and the rhomphaia both appear in Thrace at about the same time (mid-4th c. BC), so it seems like they very well may have been linked.

Argive aspides are often shown with a second antilabe opposite the one gripped by the hoplite- distinct from the other segments of the rope running around the inner surface or the additional telamon sometimes seen on aspises in vase images. In some images this second "grip" is gripped by another hoplite seemingly wrestling for the shield. I have no idea why they are on aspides, since you cannot simply turn one upside down lest your intimidating lambdas become unimpressive "V"s. They would allow you to be carried home on your aspis by your surviving friends I guess.

[Astiryu1]

Argive aspides are often shown with a second antilabe opposite the one gripped by the hoplite- distinct from the other segments of the rope running around the inner surface or the additional telamon sometimes seen on aspises in vase images. In some images this second "grip" is gripped by another hoplite seemingly wrestling for the shield. I have no idea why they are on aspides, since you cannot simply turn one upside down lest your intimidating lambdas become unimpressive "V"s. They would allow you to be carried home on your aspis by your surviving friends I guess.

Just a theory.With the two grips could the man on the left possibly overlap his shield far enough to grab his buddy's grip? Might make for a tighter phalanx.

[PMBardunias]

With the two grips could the man on the left possibly overlap his shield far enough to grab his buddy's grip? Might make for a tighter phalanx.

We discussed that possibility a while back, but I doubt it. First I think there would be mention someplace of such a behavior and it is not a consistant feature of aspises. Second, as you can see the opposite side grip is found on non-aspises that could not be used to form a phalanx. It must have some other use.

[Paullus Scipio]

"casualty evacuation" is the obvious use - a man unable to walk, or dead, could be placed on his shield and provided it has handles both sides it can be lifted, forming a handy stretcher......

[Astiryu1]

I don't doubt that it would be used for that function. It would be a very good thing to have for casualty evacuation/transportation. Thanks guys! Incorporation of existing gear to handle many tasks is essential for quick response situations. Having that sort of thing available must have been nice in those times!

[rocktupac]

Paul: excellent images! Thank you.

And I say again, WOW -- in a good way (Mr. Park)

[PMBardunias]

"casualty evacuation" is the obvious use - a man unable to walk, or dead, could be placed on his shield and provided it has handles both sides it can be lifted, forming a handy stretcher......

I agree, I suggested the same thing in my post above, but this is probably not the reason we see them on the kalkhan or on various peltae, so I wonder if there is another reason.

[Paullus Scipio]

No reason to suppose that a 'pelta' or 'khalkan' could not be so used.....they'd be plenty strong enough and big enough - after all, cloaks, small ponchos, blankets and all sorts of other things have been used as makeshift stretchers down the ages.....

[Astiryu1]

Don't forget the spears! They could make the spans on either side of the fabric as well.

[Paralus]

That when Macedonian re-inforcements arrived at various points in Alexander's campaigns, the 'Hypaspists' were brought up to strength by promoting experienced and the best members of the pezhetairoi/phalanx is highly likely. That recruits were so promoted is not.
Overall, I would agree with Paralus - there can be little doubt the 'Argyraspides' were the 'Hypaspists' with silver-plated shields in lieu of bronze.....

There is, to my mind, no doubt that the "best and brightest" of the phalanx replaced the dead or retired of the regular hypaspists as the anabasis progressed. Promotion to such a unit would be prized and a decent commander would encourage such. There is no reason to suppose that "fresh faced" newbies ever were so promoted: Gabiene baldly states otherwise. Further, the last attested Macedonian infantry reaching Alexander is at Sittacene where Diodorus (17.65.1) and Curtius (5.1.40-42) supply the figure of 6,000. None of these can be seen as replacements for the hypaspists for Arrian ( who at 3.16.10 notes the troops under Amyntas but does not note the number) provides the clear statement that they were put into the regiments of the army "arranging each according to nationalities (ethnos)". Nothing indicates the hypaspists were recruited by nationality - in fact quite the opposite - and so this corps received no reinforcements portioned on any ethnic basis. More likely the better performed and far more experienced of the phalanx brigades were so promoted.

We have only one notice of pages (paides basilikoi) reaching Alexander's mobile court: this at the same notice in Diodorus above where, following his Greek source, Diodorus terms them somatophylakes. Hammond is likely correct in observing that this was the first "draft" (there was no need to bring the entire court apparatus if the invasion failed). Diodorus numbers them at fifty and there is no reason to suppose that others did not follow - later events speak to a rather large number of same.

The literary source material - especially Arrian - clearly describe two distincnt and separate units of hypaspitae: the hypaspists and the "royal" hypaspists. Arrian becomes,on occasion, quite confused with the technical terminology he found in the source material written by an officer - of an army 500 years dead - who felt no need to explain such terminology. These units, the hypaspitae and the hyapspitae basilikoi, are then usually transalted as "the guards" or "shield-bearing guards" and the "personal guards", "infantry foot guard" or "royal shield-bearing guards". Clearly any unit designated "basilikoi" were the "king's troops". Later in the reign the "infantry foot guards" became known as the agema after the fashion of the ile basilikoi becoming the cavalry agema. The "royal" hypaspists, then, were the infantry equivalent of the ile basilikoi.

The only known royal hypaspists are of noble origin; something in stark contrast to the regular hypaspists. The clearly known commanders of the agema, royal hypaspists or somatophylakes are of blue blood: Hephaestion and Seleucus. If, as I suspect, Heckel is right in that the members of this unit are the sons of the Macedonian nobility who, having progressed from the paides basilikoi, then go onto infantry commands or the cavalry it might well be that these are the "hoplite" troops that fight in the immediate vicinity of the king. Protection of his person - in camp, at court or in battle - was their raison d'être.

[Paralus]

Came across something the other day whilst – as always – looking for something else that throws some light on the below.

One can argue with some support (not conclusive) that both the hypaspists and Silver Shields of Eumenes were hoplites or one can argue with some support (not conclusive) that these same troops were sarissa-bearing phalangites …

Paul Mac, on a thread many moons ago, posed a decent question on the subject of sarissa-armed Argyraspides for which we’d no answer (edited for brevity):

Paralus said:-

As soon as the soldiers saw him they saluted him in their Macedonian dialect, and took up their shields, and striking them with their pikes,......Mind you, as with many things, it may all be in the translation.

How true! That is the rather old Dryden translation. Here are others "And when the soldiers saw him, they hailed him at once in their Macedonian speech, caught up their shields, beat upon them with their spears, and raised their battle-cry, challenging the enemy to fight in the assurance that their leader was at hand."

- - - - - -

Unfortunately I haven't been able to get hold of Plutarch's original greek, so we can't tell if he says 'dory' (spear)'longche'(often wrongly translated as pike) 'sarissa' or even some greek version of a Roman name(he was writing during the Principate period), nor do we know what he used for shield -'aspis' or 'pelte' or something else ...!

The phrase, from the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (Teubner), reads:

...??????? ????????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????????????? ??????????...

...shields, and striking them with their sarissas...

The "foremost" Macedonians in Eumenes' army were, without any doubt, the Argyraspides as a reading of Diodorus clearly shows ( 19.13.1-2 "Seleucus and Pithon again tried to persuade the Macedonians to remove Eumenes from his command and to cease preferring against their own interests a man who was a foreigner and who had killed very many Macedonians. But when Antigenes and his men were in no way persuaded..." is one of several examples). The answer to the question, then, is that the argyraspides clashed sarissas upon their shields and so were here, and likely elsewhere, armed with such.

[Old Husker]

Thanks much for the linguistic clarification! It is, indeed, likely that the 'foremost' troops under Eumenes were the Silver Shields (assuming, of course, that 'foremost' is being used to denote 'outstanding in ability' rather than those who just happened to be 'standing near the front' of the gathering). As such, it's quite reasonable that Plutarch's source(s) must have considered these men to be sarissa-bearing phalangites. Whether soldiers of this type were always so equipped, however, is very much in doubt. This is particularly the case with regard to the campaigns of Alexander and Philip II. Many have reasonably proposed that such elites were cross-trained with both dory and sarissa (as well as longache), employing whichever instrument would serve best in any given situation. I would propose that if facing sarissa-armed opposition, especially in the age of extremely long pikes being discussed here, then sarissai would most likely be employed. If going against barbarian or hoplite opponents susceptable to othismos, as had universally been the case under Philip II and Alexander, then a dory and aspis makes much more sense. Whether this was a matter of cross-training from the beginning or due to serial adoption of alternative gear to meet changing battlefield circumstances after Alexander, I really can't say at this point. Nonetheless, the concept of elite warriors fighting with different weapons at different times is worthy of consideration as it would go far to square some of the pro-hopllte language and other evidence we have ('contemporary displays of hoplite' hypaspists against Persians for example) with other passages more indicative of sarissaphoroi as you note above.

[Paralus]

Welcome back Fred!

Thanks much for the linguistic clarification! It is, indeed, likely that the 'foremost' troops under Eumenes were the Silver Shields (assuming, of course, that 'foremost' is being used to denote 'outstanding in ability' rather than those who just happened to be 'standing near the front' of the gathering).

The entire passage is an excursus by Plutarch to incriminate the “leading Macedonians” who are accepting gifts from their corruptors. The tradition that Plutarch follows is vehemently condemnatory of both the Silver Shields and their leaders. The line involved describes their fickleness and Eumenes, having himself conveyed to them by litter, deliberately channels Alexander’s waving to his hypaspists in India where the exact same result is recorded. This is yet another indicator that the Silver Shields were Alexander’s superannuated hypaspists and the “foremost” Macedonians are better translated as “most important”.

A close reading of Diodorus quickly demonstrates that Eumenes’ army was not long on Macedonians. The Macedonians described are always those with Antigenes – the Silver Shields – and it is these that Peucestas, Seleucus, Peithon, Antigonus and Ptolemey attempt to influence. These are the “foremost” Macedonians.

Many have reasonably proposed that such elites were cross-trained with both dory and sarissa (as well as longache), employing whichever instrument would serve best in any given situation.

With which I’d agree. Whether dory or longche assaults up city fortifications and pursuits were certainly carried out sans sarissa I’d think. Again, here, “aspidas” is most certainly a “shield is a shield is a shield” – whether of 66cm or a 75 - 80 odd cm deeply bowled version.

Such “cross-training” finds tantalising support in the source material. In pursuit of rebels in Bactria, Curtius (8.2.35-36) tells us that the “young noblemen who formed his (Alexander’s) usual retinue had given up the chase”. All, that is, except for Philippos, the brother of Lysimachus “who was in the early stages of manhood”. This fellow is not on horseback because he “kept up with the king on foot”. He is not a paides basilikoi and so is near certainly a member “royal hypaspists” or the noble agema of the hypaspists.

In the pursuit of Darius Alexander, realising that his infantry will not keep up with him, dismounted some 500 cavalrymen and mounted “the toughest and fittest officers of his infantry”. These, as the preceding and following text makes plain, can only be hypaspists (and possibly Agrianians). Again it is likely they were of the king’s “usual retinue” or the agema of the hypaspists (“Nicanor, the commander of the hypaspists”, is ordered to follow with those of his “men who were left behind” Arr. 3.21.6-8).

I would propose that if facing sarissa-armed opposition, especially in the age of extremely long pikes being discussed here, then sarissai would most likely be employed. If going against barbarian or hoplite opponents susceptable to othismos, as had universally been the case under Philip II and Alexander, then a dory and aspis makes much more sense.

There are any number of assumptions in that!

I know of no evidence for “extremely long pikes” in the period immediately following Alexander’s death. It is far more likely, given the Diadochoi predilection for following and emulating Alexander (hypaspists, cavalry agemata, royal boys etc), that they’d altered little if anything during these first Successor squabbles and wars. The tactics they use are a straight lift and so, almost certainly, are the weapons and armies.

I do not see any reason for Macedonian arrays to adopt hoplite arms simply in pursuit of the storied othismos. Plutarch is as clear as a bell that the premier hoplite infantry of the day (the Sacred Band) died facing the sarissae of the Macedonians. Polybius, quoting and rabidly attacking Callisthenes, rubbishes the latter’s claim that the Macedonian phalanx, sarissae and all, crossed the battlefield of Issos – including a river. Here they fought a life and death struggle with professional Greek mercenary hoplites. The same might be said of Hydaspes where the Macedonians are clearly portrayed using the sarissa against wicker shielded barabaroi clearly susceptible to othismos.

Far too much is made of the fabled othismos in this respect.

The Silver Shields were armed with sarissae at Gabiene and there is no reason to think they adopted this for that battle alone or only after Alexander’s death.

[Paullus Scipio]

Old Husker wrote:Thanks much for the linguistic clarification! It is, indeed, likely that the 'foremost' troops under Eumenes were the Silver Shields (assuming, of course, that 'foremost' is being used to denote 'outstanding in ability' rather than those who just happened to be 'standing near the front' of the gathering).

The entire passage is an excursus by Plutarch to incriminate the “leading Macedonians” who are accepting gifts from their corruptors. …..This is yet another indicator that the Silver Shields were Alexander’s superannuated hypaspists and the “foremost” Macedonians are better translated as “most important”.

Here is the passage in question, courtesy of ‘Lacus Curtius’

Plutarch XIV.4
The gleams of their (enemy’s) golden armour in the sun flashed down from the heights as they marched along in close formation, and on the backs of the elephants the towers and purple trappings were seen, which was their array when going into battle. Accordingly, the foremost Macedonians halted in their march and called with loud cries for Eumenes, declaring that they would not go forward unless he was in command of them; and grounding their arms they passed word to one another to wait, and to their leaders to keep still, and without Eumenes not to give battle or run any hazard even with the enemy.
5 When Eumenes heard of this, he quickened the pace of his bearers to a run and came to them, and lifting the curtains of his litter on either side, stretched forth his hand in delight. And when the soldiers saw him, they hailed him at once in their Macedonian speech, caught up their shields, beat upon them with their spears ( sarissas), and raised their battle-cry, challenging the enemy to fight in the assurance that their leader was at hand.

I think it is quite clear that the “foremost Macedonians” are not the ‘leading Macedonians’ at all, but simple the Army’s vanguard who halt and pass the word back on sighting the enemy. That these are NOT the Argyraspides is also all but certain, for Eumenes had his own bodyguard/Hypaspists, who would have formed the vanguard on the march, and took the place of honour on the flank next to Eumenes at Paraitakene/Gabiene ( see Paralus' excellent article in “Ancient Warfare III.2”) These men apparently included an “agema” also ( of whom more anon), and since they were drawn from ordinary Macedonian infantry, they will have been sarissa armed. However we must also exercise caution too, for Plutarch likely commits an anachronism here in describing elephants with towers since it is believed these were introduced by Pyrrhus some 35-40 years later ( see Scullard et al) and perhaps Plutarch, or his source, makes a similar error in assuming all Macedonians to be sarissa armed.

A close reading of Diodorus quickly demonstrates that Eumenes’ army was not long on Macedonians. The Macedonians described are always those with Antigenes – the Silver Shields – and it is these that Peucestas, Seleucus, Peithon, Antigonus and Ptolemey attempt to influence. These are the “foremost” Macedonians.

Well, there were plenty of Macedonians in Eumenes army – at least 3,000 - as we have seen, BEFORE the ‘Argyraspides’ joined up. They evidently formed a significant part of his army…
Plutarch “Life of Eumenes” VIII.6
In consequence of this, Eumenes was again in high favour; and once when letters were found in his camp which the leaders of the enemy had caused to be scattered there, wherein they offered a hundred talents and honours to any one who should kill Eumenes, his Macedonians were highly incensed and made a decree that a thousand of the leading soldiers should serve him continually as a body-guard, watching over him when he went abroad and spending the night at his door. These carried out the decree, and were delighted to receive from Eumenes such honours as kings bestow upon their friends. For he was empowered to distribute purple caps and military cloaks, and this was a special gift of royalty among Macedonians.
….evidently Eumenes formed an ‘Agema’(bodyguard/leading unit) 1,000 strong within his ‘Hypaspists’ (just like Alexander’s). If any troops in particular, as opposed to ‘Macedonians’ generally, are the ‘sarissa’ armed troops referred to, it is them, NOT the ‘Argyraspides’.

Old Husker wrote:Many have reasonably proposed that such elites were cross-trained with both dory and sarissa (as well as longache), employing whichever instrument would serve best in any given situation.

With which I’d agree. Whether dory or longche assaults up city fortifications and pursuits were certainly carried out sans sarissa I’d think. Again, here, “aspidas” is most certainly a “shield is a shield is a shield” – whether of 66cm or a 75 - 80 odd cm deeply bowled version.

I do not believe this is correct. At this time ‘aspis’ referred to the rimmed Hoplite shield in particular, as well as meaning ‘large shield’ generally Originally ‘aspis’ was a generic term for a large shield, ( e.g. Herodotus description of long Egyptian shields as ‘aspides’) and when the ‘Argive Hoplite shield’ was universal, it came to be synonymous with it when referring to Greek equipment. Later, when the ‘Argive Hoplite shield’ had disappeared along with Hoplites, the term came to mean a generic ‘large shield’ once more. We see Macedonians armed with ‘Argive Hoplite shield/Aspis’ and what is probably a dory on the iconography (e.g. the so-called ‘Alexander Sarcophagus’. There is also a reference in a Byzantine Military manual that “the Macedonians of old” used a dory as well as a sarissa), and I thought we had established earlier that the sarissa and ‘Argive Aspis’ could NOT be used together. Thus we can have pelta equipped ‘sarissaphoroi’ who can be longche armed off the pitched battlefield, and similarly Dory/Aspis armed troops ( most likely the Hypaspists….but let’s not go down that trail just yet!!!!) who might carry longche as an alternative, but because of the different shields, none can be armed with all three.
There is evidence for this too – Plutarch’s “Life of Eumenes” referred to above has Neoptolemos( Eumenes deadly enemy) boast:

Plutarch “Life of Eumenes I”
“Therefore when Neoptolemus, the commander of the Shield-bearers(Hypaspists), after Alexander's death, said that he had followed the king with ‘shield and spear(longche)’, but Eumenes with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed him to scorn; they knew that, besides his other honours, Eumenes had been deemed worthy by the king of relationship in marriage.”

Notice no mention of sarissa !!
For evidence of the dual armament for ‘sarissaphoroi’ there is Curtius’ story of the dual fought between one of Alexander’s Macedonians and an Athenian. The Macedonian was ‘fully armed’ and carried both sarissa and longche, while the Athenian was ‘naked’ and carried only a club.

I know of no evidence for “extremely long pikes” in the period immediately following Alexander’s death. It is far more likely, given the Diadochoi predilection for following and emulating Alexander (hypaspists, cavalry agemata, royal boys etc), that they’d altered little if anything during these first Successor squabbles and wars. The tactics they use are a straight lift and so, almost certainly, are the weapons and armies.

I do not see any reason for Macedonian arrays to adopt hoplite arms simply in pursuit of the storied othismos. Plutarch is as clear as a bell that the premier hoplite infantry of the day (the Sacred Band) died facing the sarissae of the Macedonians. Polybius, quoting and rabidly attacking Callisthenes, rubbishes the latter’s claim that the Macedonian phalanx, sarissae and all, crossed the battlefield of Issos – including a river. Here they fought a life and death struggle with professional Greek mercenary hoplites. The same might be said of Hydaspes where the Macedonians are clearly portrayed using the sarissa against wicker shielded barabaroi clearly susceptible to othismos.

Far too much is made of the fabled othismos in this respect.

I would certainly agree with all the above – the whole ‘othismos’ business has blown out of all proportion (witness a new debate elsewhere on the forum).

The Silver Shields were armed with sarissae at Gabiene and there is no reason to think they adopted this for that battle alone or only after Alexander’s death.

That is far too certain a statement, and I cannot agree with it. As I hope I have shown, the ‘Macedonians’ armed with sarissa are either all of them generically, or if they are a specific unit (the ‘foremost/vanguard’) then they are Eumenes’ Hypaspists. In either event these troops are not the ‘Argyraspides’, and this passage does not support the view that they were sarissa armed.
My view, held for over 30 years, is that the evidence favours the original Hypaspists/Argyraspides being ‘Dory/Aspis’ armed in Philip and Alexander’s era, but that this combination disappeared from Macedonian armies with their demise.

[Paralus]

I think it is quite clear that the “foremost Macedonians” are not the ‘leading Macedonians’ at all, but simple the Army’s vanguard who halt and pass the word back on sighting the enemy.

Again, the entire passage is an excursus on the behaviour of “the Macedonians” and the entire passage needs to be read to see the point being made. The passage begins by announcing the subject matter:

(14.1) The Macedonians, however, while there was no danger, continued to take gifts from their corrupters, and hung about the doors of these men, who now had body-guards and wanted to be generals.

This, then, is what this passage (14) is to concern itself with. Plutarch then gives two immediate examples of the change in their behaviour when they are not in danger: the threatening encampment of Monophthalmos and his attempt to attack across the Pasitigris where “every man of them, gave in to him [Eumenes] and consented without a murmur to hold the post which he gave them”.

Plutarch then provides the most important example of this two-faced behaviour writing that “most of all in connection with the sickness that befell him did the Macedonians make it clear that they considered the others able to feast them splendidly and hold high festival, but him alone capable of wielding command and waging war”. Here he explains that Peucestas, scheming for command, feasted these very same Macedonians in Persis and that “a few days afterwards, as the soldiers were marching against the enemy” they refused to engage the enemy until the sick Eumenes demonstrated that he would command. “The Macedonians” are the same Macedonians mentioned in the first sentence. Which brings us to just who they are…

That these are NOT the Argyraspides is also all but certain, for Eumenes had his own bodyguard/Hypaspists, who would have formed the vanguard on the march, and took the place of honour on the flank next to Eumenes at Paraitakene/Gabiene ( see Paralus' excellent article in “Ancient Warfare III.2”)..

We need not concern ourselves with the army of Eumenes two years hence: this is not that army. Eumenes was defeated at Orcynii in 319 and walled up in Nora. Indeed, when he rescinds his alliance with Antigonus he makes for Cilicia with either 2,500 “friends” and soldiers (Diod 18.54.7) or 1,000 horsemen (Eum. 12.3). That these were Macedonian is not stated but Diodorus does clearly state that Eumenes’ men had deserted him and that Monophthalmos had in fact “taken over the army that had been with Eumenes, had become master of Eumenes' satrapies together with their revenues” (18.41.4). Eumenes’ army and, as happened constantly, those Macedonians present in it were now Antigonus’.

Eumenes then recruited mercenaries in Cilicia as well as joining with the Macedonian Silver Shields. The only other additions to his army come from the rather polyglot “Satrapal coalition” army in Susiane. It is worth noting how “the Macedonians” are described when mentioned.

In Babylonia “Eumenes with the Macedonian Silver Shields and their commander Antigenes wintered” where the Silver Shields are approached by Seleucus to remove Eumenes (19.12.1-3) and “the Macedonians” pay no heed. Later “Antigenes and his men were in no way persuaded” at 19.13.1. Again, and more importantly, when Peucestas jostles for command in Susiane “Antigenes, who was general of the Silver Shields, said that the right to make the selection ought to be granted to his Macedonians, since they had conquered Asia with Alexander and had been unconquered because of their valour” (19.15.2).

The clearest example of the makeup of Eumenes’ army is given when Peucestas feasts the troops in Persis (19.22.2):

The circuit of the outer ring was of ten stades and was filled with the mercenaries and the mass of the allies; the circuit of the second was of eight stades, and in it were the Macedonian Silver Shields and those of the Companions who had fought under Alexander; the circuit of the next was of four stades and its area was filled with reclining men — the commanders of lower rank, the friends and generals who were unassigned, and the cavalry; lastly in the inner circle with a perimeter of two stades each of the generals and hipparchs and also each of the Persians who was most highly honoured occupied his own couch.

The “hetairoi” are likely pezhetairoi else they would be listed with the cavalry. Were these 3,000 “hypaspists”, one would expect it to be noted. The number is never given and they likely are those Macedonians deputed to the satraps as well as those that Eumenes had persuaded to join him when recruiting earlier. Under Alexander the satrap Philip had his “Macedonian somatophylakes” (Arr. 6.27.2) and one expects so did others. Either way their number is not large and it is the Silver Shields at whom this feasting is directed for it will be they who decide command as Diodorus has already noted.

….evidently Eumenes formed an Agema’(bodyguard/leading unit) 1,000 strong within his ‘Hypaspists’ (just like Alexander’s). If any troops in particular, as opposed to ‘Macedonians’ generally, are the ‘sarissa’ armed troops referred to, it is them, NOT the ‘Argyraspides’.

Plutarch does not describe the group as an agema nor does he use hypaspist. He terms these Macedonians doruphorountas. Diodorus uses the word “agema” four times from memory over this campaign. He knows – or his source knows – what the term means and does not refer to such outside of the cavalry.

I do not believe this is correct. At this time ‘aspis’ referred to the rimmed Hoplite shield in particular, as well as meaning ‘large shield’ generally Originally ‘aspis’ was a generic term for a large shield, and I thought we had established earlier that the sarissa and ‘Argive Aspis’ could NOT be used together.

I don’t propose to disagree with the source material; to do so would necessitate emendation or the supposition that the source was unaware of what he wrote about. If this hostile tradition towards the Silver Shields comes from Hieronymus as is generally supposed, that is a very big call. I would prefer to see it that “aspidas” is used by the ultimate source (writing two decades into the third century) in a non-specific sense here as it does less violence to the source material. There is less reason to suppose that the same writer committed an “error in assuming all Macedonians to be sarissa armed”.

As I hope I have shown, the ‘Macedonians’ armed with sarissa are either all of them generically, or if they are a specific unit (the ‘foremost/vanguard’) then they are Eumenes’ Hypaspists.

It is nowhere stated that Eumenes’ hypaspists are Macedonian and, given the numbers of Macedonians available, it is more likely they were not. It may be that Macedonian officers populated the ranks but no source indicates that they are Macedonian.