The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Old Husker]

I apologize for my misleading use of the term "extremely long sarissai" in my earlier post. What I should have said was simply 'longer' pikes. By this I mean on the order of 15 foot versus the 12 foot or so sarissai with which Philip probably began his career with the 'Macedonian' phalanx back in 358 B.C. There does not appear to be any evidence for this this longer device prior to the battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C., though I believe it must have been introduced earlier (most logically to correct shortcomings in the shorter weapon exposed during Philip's defeats in Thessaly, the first in particular where artillery was not involved). It seems that these reverses damaged his army's confidence so badly that it threatened revolt rather than remain in the field against its hoplite foes.

As for the Sacred Band, they did indeed go down to sarissai, but did so facing the subordinate commander Alexander and his left/defensive wing of the Macedonian phalanx, rather than Philip and his hoplite/hypaspists on the right. It seems most likely that the Thebans fell only at battle's end after Philip's 'false retreat and couter-attack' broke the Greek formation's left and allowed the phalangites to finally close about and destroy these elites as they were breaking up on the right.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that othismos was the only reason that hypaspists probably employed dory and aspis in set battles. The much superior offensive potential of the dory versus the sarissa (when it could be brought to bear against opponents armed with weapons shorter than a pike) must also have provided considrable incentive to using traditional hoplite gear.

I'd very much like to get a reference for the "Byzantine" manual that mentions the Macedonians' use of both dory and sarissa. I should think that it was responding to the same sort of evidence for dory use we see today (as on the Alexander sarcophagus, etc.), which might have been even more abundant at that time.

[Paullus Scipio]

Fred/Old Husker wrote:

I'd very much like to get a reference for the "Byzantine" manual that mentions the Macedonians' use of both dory and sarissa. I should think that it was responding the same sort of evidence for dory use we see today (as on the Alexander sarcophagus, etc.), which might have been even more abundant at that time.

I didn't mention its name, because I don't have it, and it is presently inaccessible.It is the 'Sylloge Tacticorum' (??????? ????????), compiled in the latter half of the 10th century, possibly during the reign of Constantine VII.The text is divided into two major sections: the first (chapters 1 to 56) draws upon various earlier authors and provides advice on generalship, battle formations and tactics, and siege warfare. The second half (chapters 57 to 102) deals with mechanical devices such as catapults, employed by past generals, drawing chiefly from ancient authors. It can be traced right back, via various Byzantine manuals which largely repeat one another, to Roman and Hellenistic manuals.It states that in addition to to an 8 'foot' doru, the 'Macedonians of old' also used a sarissa of not less than 14 'feet'. ( n.b. the actual lengths are problematic, and I have been researching this length problem, and will hopefully have something new to say on the subject. The point is that it categorically states that the 'Macedonians of old' used both the 'doru' AND the 'sarissa'.)

It draws on the 'literary tradition', hence not observation of monuments such as the 'Alexander Sarcophagus'.

Incidently, what makes you think that Philip began by using 12 ft sarissas ? No measurement given in our literature is this small. The earliest statement (Theophrastus - a contemporay) refers to 12 cubits (probably Athenian cubits), or around 18 feet long......

[Paralus]

I apologize for my misleading use of the term "extremely long sarissai" in my earlier post. What I should have said was simply 'longer' pikes. By this I mean on the order of 15 foot versus the 12 foot or so sarissai with which Philip probably began his career with the 'Macedonian' phalanx back in 358 B.C. There does not appear to be any evidence for this this longer device prior to the battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C., though I believe it must have been introduced earlier...

I know of no evidence for that. I’m assuming you see Philip adopting Iphicrates’ lengthened spears for which, again, we have no attestation. The only (contemporary) attestation we have is Theophrastus who, whilst indicating that the male cornel tree was suitable for javelins, notes that the tree was “at most twelve cubits, the length of the longest sarissa”. Without going into Macedonian versus Attic cubits and mathematics, this indicates that the longest sarissa was some 15-18 feet long and that there existed a shorter sarissa. One or more of the tactical manuals agrees with that (our resident keeper of "The Manuals", Paul Mac, will save me searching I'm sure....).

That there is no evidence for this weapon prior to Chaeronaea does not mean such absence proves absence of weapons: the material is rather patchy to say the least. Add to that Diodorus’ categorical statement that Philip, at the commencement of his reign, was the first to devise not only the “Macedonian phalanx” but also its “sunaspismon” order.

The differing lengths of sarissa are probably better explained by the use of the xyston by the Companion Cavalry. Arrian attests this in use at both at Granicus and Gaugamela and the Macedonians continued to use it under the Successors (see Gaza). Whilst it is fraught to deduce lengths from artwork, it appears to have been in the order of at least ten or a little more feet long, double bladed and made from cornel wood.

It is far easier to see this referred to as a sarissa rather than a “bloody long dory”. Thus the “cavalry sarissa” was the ten or more foot xyston.

I didn't mention its name, because I don't have it, and it is presently inaccessible.It is the 'Sylloge Tacticorum' (??????? ????????), compiled in the latter half of the 10th century, possibly during the reign of Constantine VII.

The Sylloge Tacticorum is available via Thesaurus Lingua Graecae under Anonyma Tactica Byzantina. Have you a reference?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

One or more of the tactical manuals agrees with that (our resident keeper of "The Manuals", Paul Mac, will save me searching I'm sure....).

:lol: :lol: :lol: .....Asclepiodotus to be exact - who says 10-12 cubits, consistent with Theophrastus for the early sarissa.....

That there is no evidence for this weapon prior to Chaeronaea does not mean such absence proves absence of weapons: the material is rather patchy to say the least. Add to that Diodorus’ categorical statement that Philip, at the commencement of his reign, was the first to devise not only the “Macedonian phalanx” but also its “sunaspismon” order.

To elaborate, in the time of Xenophon, Hoplites employed two 'orders' - the 'normal' order which had no special name, with 4 cubits/6 ft of frontage per hoplite ( what in modern terms is 'open' order) and a 'close order' of 2 cubits/3 ft frontage, adopted just before contact with the enemy, called 'pyknosis' and occasionally the term 'synaspismos'/locked shields was used, for in 'pyknosis' the 90cm/3 ft aspides/shields touched, with each hoplite in a 'three-quarter' stance as depicted in iconography.
The use of the 'sarissa' two-handed necessitated a side-on stance, which together with smaller rimless shields/peltae c. 70 cm/26-28 ins in diameter necessarily held at an angle, allowed an even closer order, so that the Hellenistic manuals describe three 'orders' - 'normal' that had no special name, 6 ft per man; 'pyknosois'/close, used for fighting, 3 ft per man; and a new 'synaspismos' 1 cubit/18 inches per man - a prickly hedgehog normally used for stationary defence but in which a slow advance was also possible. This latter formation was not possible for hoplites.
The term 'Macedonian phalanx' means a sarissa armed one, and the fact that it was for this sarissa armed formation that 'synaspismos'/locked shields of 1 cubit frontage was invented make it certain that Diodorus is telling us that Philip devised both the sarissa armament, and it's 'special' formation, at the beginning of his reign.

[Old Husker]

Good to be back, Paul, thanks much for the warm welcome! You're quite right, of course, that we have no hard data on length of the sarissa in Philip's early days. I am assuming here that he had adopted the pike devloped by Iphicrates a few years earlier for his Egyptian campaign on Persia's behalf. Not a certainty by any stretch of the imagination! Yet this idea is both logical and has strong historical roots in the timing and close nature of the relalationship between Iphicrates and Philip, the former having toiled in the Thraceward region subseqent to his Persian service and having been taken into the Macedonian royal family. It seems very likely that the famed Athenian passed this tactical inovation on to his adopted brother, Philip, who then put it to good use in 358 when facing the very same task of upgrading light infantrymen into phalanx fighters. Again, no certainty, just what I see as the strongest probability available to us at this time ('strongest' being merely a relative term and not a statement of iron-clad conviction). I very much agree with our friend Paralus' in that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' thus my thought that the longer version of the pike probably was in use well prior to its first archaeological documentation in 338 B.C. The spotty nature of these kinds of finds render that date merely the 'very latest point' at which this weapon could have appeared. As for going from 12-foot to 15-foot, rather than much longer, I feel that this is logical as well, being in line with the concept that such innovations among inherently conservative military men tend to be as modest as possible, coming in small, step-like progressions most of the time. Such conservatism is, of course, almost mandatory in a profession where you will pay a heavy price in blood for any mistaken over-reach. I think that that first extra three feet (up to 15) was the minimumn to get one more pike point out in front of the leading rank of phalangites, thus going far to prevent future penetrations by hoplites using a 9-foot or so dory, something that probably had happened in Thessaly against Onomarchos in 354 B.C. (during Philip's first defeat). Naturally, once Macedonian warfare later became a matter of phalangite versus phalangite for the most part, an 'arms race' must have developed, with each side adopting ever longer weapons toward getting an edge over its opposition until a practical maxium was reached (+20 feet, or so it seems). All this, once more, can only be highly speculative, but it's the 'best guess' that I can make at present from sources are that are both few in number and usually rather far removed from their subject matter in time and/or the writer's real-life experience.

[Paullus Scipio]

I've no wish to digress into a discourse on Eumenes and his campaigns ( though worthy of a thread in itself! ), and Paralus' views on the composition of his army at Parataikene/Gabiene is certainly a plausible interpretation of the sources ( Diodorus Books XVIII and XIX; Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos "Life of Eumenes") all of which probably largely ( but not entirely) derive from the now lost work of Eumenes' friend and fellow countryman Hieronymous, who after Eumenes death served Antigonus, his son Demetrius and Antogonus Gonatas.
But it is not the only plausible interpretation.
That the great Macedonian Lords vied with one another for overall control is not in doubt - Peucestes, Antigenes and Teutamus ( commanders of the 'Silver-shields', who are said to have numbered MORE than 3,000) and others.....and Paralus' account of the 'Silvershields' and their arrogant view of themselves as 'power-brokers' as described by Diodorus etc via Hieronymous is also not in doubt, so I won't discuss it but instead confine myself to an alternative look at his Army and its composition. It is certainly true that on occasion, when the sources refer to "the Macedonians", they mean the 'Silvershields' rank and file, and that since these men treacherously sold out Hieronymous' friend Eumenes, he naturally concentrates on their doings, but there are a number of clues that they were far from the only Macedonians in Eumenes Army.

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’.

It is correct that after his defeat, Eumenes 'dispersed' his army and withdrew to the small, but strong, fortress of Nora.However, there are two apparently conflicting accounts of what became of these troops, which included at least 3,000 or more Macedonian Infantry ( who are not the 'silvershields', who came later). Diodorus says, as Paralus quotes, that Antigonus 'took over' Eumenes troops. But Plutarch says:
“Eumenes persuaded most of his soldiers to leave him, either out of regard for them, or because he was unwilling to trail after him a body of men too small to give battle, and too large to escape the enemy's notice.”
….And keeping just 500 cavalry and 200 ‘men-at-arms’ - presumably of his 1,000 ‘bodyguards’- with him at Nora, who must all have been Macedonians. So what are we to make of this apparent conflict, since both are based on Hieronymous? That Eumenes’ army went over to Antigonus “en masse” is highly unlikely since they ‘dispersed’. What does seem likely is that the mercenary element will have had few compunctions about seeking out a new employer, but that Eumenes’ Macedonians, the cavalry and 3,000 infantry may well not have – not least because Antigonus may have punished those who defied him and guarded Eumenes so loyally, as he did the 'Silvershields' later. Is there some evidence for this? Well, as part of the negotiations on his leaving Nora and becoming Antigonus’ “ally” he received horses, and …
“He also collected all the soldiers who had become scattered by his flight and were now wandering about the country, so that he had a force of almost a thousand horsemen.” ….doubtless created by mounting some infantrymen. Although Plutarch says he gathered “all” the soldiers, we may take it that most of those who had gone over to Antigonus stayed there. This is re-inforced by the fact that Eumenes fled, so his force must have been small – 1,000 cavalry and an unknown number of Infantry, perhaps no more than the 700 ‘bodyguards’ left after mounting some, and probably no more than the 3,000 who formed his ‘Macedonian’ infantry previously.

It is at that this point that Olympias, Alexander’s mother, sends the ‘silvershields’ and Eumenes Satraps – Peucestes et al join him with their bodyguards and other troops including Persian archers and slingers– and it is likely that these were ‘Macedonian’ bodyguards.

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.

In fact it is not the 'Silvershields' who decide the command - Eumenes denies Antigenes demand, but more of that anon. I would agree that these ‘Hetairoi’ are likely to be ‘pezhetairoi’, and we agree the various ‘bodyguards’ of the Great Magnates/Satraps will also have been Macedonian – and they of course were not ‘handed over’ to form Eumenes 3,000 Hypaspists. These must surely be mostly his previous 3,000+ Macedonian Infantry, and numbered among the ‘Hetairoi’ at the feast, for together these ‘Hetairoi’ and the ‘Silvershields’ are the second largest contingent ( proabably 6,000+), after the 11,000 mercenaries and allied ‘barbarians’, which fits well with their numbers given later in battle.( 3,000+ Hypaspists and 3,000+ 'Silvershields')

Also, as Paralus relates, Antigenes demands that the right to appoint a commander should be that of the ‘Silvershields’ alone. That would hardly be necessary if they comprised the bulk of the Macedonians present, since they would have a majority of votes (3,000+)at a ‘Macedonian Assembly’ – but would be necessary if they could be outvoted by Eumenes' Macedonian cavalry and infantry together. Furthermore, at both battles, the ‘Silvershields’ are second in seniority to Eumenes' Hypaspists. It is hard to believe that Alexander’s ex-Hypaspists would defer to non-Macedonian ‘barbarian’ troops in such a matter, or that Antigenes and Teutamas would agree to jointly command them and the 'Silvershields' as a single unit if they were 'barbarian'.

However, the main reason for thinking that Eumenes 3,000+ Hypaspists are Macedonian is that unless they are among the Macedonian ‘Hetairoi’, they are completely unaccounted for at the feast.

[Paralus]

I’d a post penned to go earlier but took it down as this went up prior to posting! There’s far too much to deal with from the office so just a couple of corrections…

That the great Macedonian Lords vied with one another for overall control is not in doubt - Peucestes, Antigenes and Teutamus ( commanders of the 'Silver-shields', who are said to have numbered MORE than 3,000)…

That, I’d argue, is incorrect. At 18.59.3 they are dcribed as “about 3,000” (arguraspides Makedones, ontes peri trischilious) and at 19.30.6 “at this time only / just 3,000” (tote trischilioi men ontes). The key passage is 19.28.1 referred to by Paul Mac above:

…the Macedonian Silver Shields, more than three thousand in number… / hoi Makedones arguraspides, ontes men pleious trischiliôn…

Now the Loeb follows the Vogel-Fischer, Leipzig (Teubner). It almost always follows the Parisinus graecus codex and the other manuscript, the Florentinus Laurentianus, disagrees here (as elsewhere). The above passage in the Loeb omits the negative “ou” prior to “pleious trischiliôn”. Restored that clearly states “not more that 3,000” and coheres with the other references to their numbers in the text

But Plutarch says:
“Eumenes persuaded most of his soldiers to leave him, either out of regard for them, or because he was unwilling to trail after him a body of men too small to give battle, and too large to escape the enemy's notice.”

The tradition of desertion to the enemy is far more likely correct; Plutarch’s will be a more apologetic version in Eumenes’ favour and likely Hieronymus’ creation.

That Eumenes’ army went over to Antigonus “en masse” is highly unlikely since they ‘dispersed’.

I don’t see why not: this was extremely commonplace throughout the period. There is no reason to doubt Diodorus’ clear statement that the army transferred its employment.

What does seem likely is that the mercenary element will have had few compunctions about seeking out a new employer, but that Eumenes’ Macedonians, the cavalry and 3,000 infantry may well not have – not least because Antigonus may have punished those who defied him and guarded Eumenes so loyally, as he did the 'Silvershields' later.

We have only the one notice of 3,000 Macedonians wandering about unemployed and these were Antigonus’. As above, the history of the period is replete with Macedonians transferring their allegiance often. It did not benefit a grandee to indiscriminately punish or kill Macedonians – they were in rather limited supply after all. Thus the tradition that the Argyraspides were sent to be destroyed – again preserved by Plutarch – is exaggerated. Monophthalmus likely broke them up for garrison duty and sent the most belligerent (1,000 whom he’d well have known and likely led by Teutamos) to Arachosia.

Is there some evidence for this? Well, as part of the negotiations on his leaving Nora and becoming Antigonus’ “ally” he received horses, and …
“He also collected all the soldiers who had become scattered by his flight and were now wandering about the country, so that he had a force of almost a thousand horsemen.”

The “soldiers” he collected are almost certainly mostly cavalry. This was Eumenes’ strongest arm and had been raised from his own satrapy. The bulk of any infantry will have been made up of Cappadoccians for similar reasons. Those Eumenes was locked up in Nora with are described as his closest “philoi”. How many of that 600 – cavalry and infantry – were Macedonians we have no way of knowing.

[Paullus Scipio]

That, I’d argue, is incorrect. At 18.59.3 they are dcribed as “about 3,000” (arguraspides Makedones, ontes peri trischilious) and at 19.30.6 “at this time only / just 3,000” (tote trischilioi men ontes). The key passage is 19.28.1 referred to by Paul Mac above:

…the Macedonian Silver Shields, more than three thousand in number… / hoi Makedones arguraspides, ontes men pleious trischiliôn…


Now the Loeb follows the Vogel-Fischer, Leipzig (Teubner). It almost always follows the Parisinus graecus codex and the other manuscript, the Florentinus Laurentianus, disagrees here (as elsewhere). The above passage in the Loeb omits the negative “ou” prior to “pleious trischiliôn”. Restored that clearly states “not more that 3,000” and coheres with the other references to their numbers in the text

Well, as to which text, you 'pays yer money and takes yer choice' - which is not say that the Loeb, which presumably follows the text/manuscript the translator thought more reliable, is wrong. Perhaps we can agree '3,000 Argyraspides, give or take a few....' :lol: :lol:

A few lines later, the 'Hypaspists' are also said to be "more than 3,000"....do the texts differ on this figure also?

The tradition of desertion to the enemy is far more likely correct; Plutarch’s will be a more apologetic version in Eumenes’ favour and likely Hieronymus’ creation..........The “soldiers” he collected are almost certainly mostly cavalry. This was Eumenes’ strongest arm and had been raised from his own satrapy. The bulk of any infantry will have been made up of Cappadoccians for similar reasons.

...I would say LESS likely, since in addition to the 'almost 1,000 cavalry' that Eumenes has straight after Nora, Diodorus also gives him 2,000 troops who must be infantry, and who 'follow him of their own free will' i.e. volunteers, not conscripted Cappadocians... (XVIII.53.7). You suggest that these might be Cappadocians, but they are hostile to Eumenes ( he holds many Cappadocian hostages in Nora), nor could so large a number of 'Cappadocian recruits' be raised and trained in such a short time. ( "within a few days" Diod XVIII.53.7) These 2,000 'volunteers' can really only realistically be part of the 'dispersed' army that have not gone over to Antigonus - and most probably those Macedonians loyal enough to Eumenes to provide him with a thousand strong bodyguard. This number also fits in well with the original 3,000 Macedonian infantry, for a further 200 infantry ( according to Plutarch) were in Nora, together with 500 cavalry. Thus "within a few days" of leaving Nora Eumenes has his original 500 'friends'/cavalry, a further 500 cavalry ( and cavalry are certainly not created in 'days' either), and at least 2,200 infantry....

How many of that 600 – cavalry and infantry – were Macedonians we have no way of knowing.

Well, Plutarch, drawing on much the same sources, says 500 cavalry and 200 infantry, Diodorus says "about 600", and later Diodorus says 500 cavalry/'friends' accompanied Eumenes out of Nora. The numbers are 'close enough'.....allowing for casualties of the siege etc
I would suggest that it is overwhelmingly likely that ALL(well,almost all :wink: ) were Macedonians - aside from the logic of keeping your best/most loyal/toughest guards about you ( e.g. the best of the Macedonian 'bodyguard' honoured with purple raiment etc), they are described as "friends" of Eumenes in a formal sense - an honour usually bestowed on Macedonians.

We have only the one notice of 3,000 Macedonians wandering about unemployed and these were Antigonus’. As above, the history of the period is replete with Macedonians transferring their allegiance often.

.....plus the 2,000 infantry and 500 cavalry referred to above, who can hardly be 'raw recruits' for the reasons stated....

There is no reason to doubt Diodorus’ clear statement that the army transferred its employment.

As I indicated earlier, this is not only contradicted by Plutarch, and I don't think you can just write off his account as Hieronymous being apologetic for Eumenes, but also contradicted by the rest of Diodorus (XVIII.53.6) "He gathered together his former friends and those who had once served under him and were now wandering about the country..." i.e. 'dispersed', as Plutarch says. These 500 cavalry and 2,000 infantry which Eumenes obtains "within days" must not only be already trained troops ( note we are not told he 'raised' troops, or 'recruited' troops), but to be with Eumenes "within a few days", they must also have been perilously close by, near to Antigonus' besieging army....a clear inference that they were skilled, trained, soldiers.
The statement that Antigonus "had taken over the army that had been with Eumenes" is a broad general one - and as you noted, even Diodorus has around 2,500 men of this army stay with Eumenes, again the numbers tying in.....

But the clincher that these men were Macedonian, and formed Eumenes 'Hypaspists' is their being 'brigaded' with, and having seniority over, the 'Silvershields', and that at the feast they must be the 'Hetairoi'/companions who feast alongside the 'Silvershields' since they can't be anyone else.....

[Paralus]

Well, as to which text, you 'pays yer money and takes yer choice' - which is not say that the Loeb, which presumably follows the text/manuscript the translator thought more reliable, is wrong. Perhaps we can agree '3,000 Argyraspides, give or take a few....' :lol: :lol:

Matters are never quite that simple. Diodorus uses the combined terms on a number of occasions - usually to indicate smaller contingents.

A few lines later, the 'Hypaspists' are also said to be "more than 3,000"....do the texts differ on this figure also?

No. The reading is "ontas pleious trischiliôn". What is missing is the particle "men" used in relation to the Argyraspides. This is to denote some certainty: "certainly / truthfully / indeed <ou = not> more than 3,000".

We have only the one notice of 3,000 Macedonians wandering about unemployed and these were Antigonus’. As above, the history of the period is replete with Macedonians transferring their allegiance often.

.....plus the 2,000 infantry and 500 cavalry referred to above, who can hardly be 'raw recruits' for the reasons stated....

Diodrus is compressing his source: the departure from Nora and the revoking of the alliance and Eumenes' concurrent scarpering to Cilicia did not happen days apart. It only appears that way in the summarised text of Diodorus.

These 2,000 'volunteers' can really only realistically be part of the 'dispersed' army that have not gone over to Antigonus - and most probably those Macedonians loyal enough to Eumenes to provide him with a thousand strong bodyguard. This number also fits in well with the original 3,000 Macedonian infantry....

What is the source for Eumens having 3,000 Macedonian infantry in the army of Orcynii?

There is much more here - including the language used by Diodorus - and I will address it a little later as I need to get going....

[Paralus]

The tradition of desertion to the enemy is far more likely correct; Plutarch’s will be a more apologetic version in Eumenes’ favour and likely Hieronymus’ creation..........The “soldiers” he collected are almost certainly mostly cavalry. This was Eumenes’ strongest arm and had been raised from his own satrapy. The bulk of any infantry will have been made up of Cappadoccians for similar reasons.

...I would say LESS likely, since in addition to the 'almost 1,000 cavalry' that Eumenes has straight after Nora, Diodorus also gives him 2,000 troops who must be infantry, and who 'follow him of their own free will' i.e. volunteers, not conscripted Cappadocians... (XVIII.53.7).

I would suggest that one tradition or the other is correct; adding the two disparate notices to produce a larger total is an odd way to go. Perhaps, using that method and adding Arrian and Diodorus, the Persian satraps had 120,000 foot and 30,000 cavalry at Granicus?

Eumenes’ Cappadoccians are not “conscripted’; the source material states that he promised his volunteers freedom from taxes et al. The Cappadoccians in the army of Orcynii were volunteers. They might well be persuaded to continue throwing in their lot once more.

As to Macedonians “wandering about the country” (the expanses of Cappadoccia), Eumenes had been locked up for a year. It is rather odd to expect that they’d be “wandering about the country” a year later with no employer and, a fortiori, no pay on the off chance that Eumenes might survive his incarceration. Even less likely that Eumenes, “within a few days” of that release, gathered them all together.

The philoi and those Eumenes managed to garner (“who’d served him before”) are more likely his satrapal attendees and his “paides” (who appear in both great battles). The notion that “philoi” is normally applied to Macedonians cannot stand. Philip II opened the hetairoi to many a non-Macedonian and the retinues of the successors numbered many a Greek philoi.

[Paralus]

The statement that Antigonus "had taken over the army that had been with Eumenes" is a broad general one - and as you noted, even Diodorus has around 2,500 men of this army stay with Eumenes, again the numbers tying in.....

Aside from the current notice of troops being taken over or transferring allegience (Eumenes' army of Orcynii), there are others in Diodorus I did not have to hand: 18 75.1; 19 11.2-3; 43.8; 50.1; 50.3. We can add to this Diodorus' insistence that Antigonus did, indeed, take over Eumenes' army when he reports Antigonus' intentions after the death of Antipater (18.50.1 & 3 ):

In Asia, as soon as the death of Antipater was noised abroad, there was a first stirring of revolution, since each of those in power undertook to work for his own ends. Antigonus, who was foremost of these, had already won a victory over Eumenes in Cappadocia and had taken over his army, and he had also completely defeated Alcetas and Attalus in Pisidia and had annexed their troops [...] For at that time he had sixty thousand foot-soldiers, ten thousand horsemen, and thirty elephants; and in addition to these he expected to make ready other forces also if there should be need, since Asia could provide pay without end for the mercenaries he might muster.

And one might not doubt those figures given that Eumenes is still locked away and the demise of Alcetas and Attalus. Antigonus seems well practised at "taking over" opposing armies...

[Paullus Scipio]

Paralus wrote:

Diodorus is compressing his source: the departure from Nora and the revoking of the alliance and Eumenes' concurrent scarpering to Cilicia did not happen days apart. It only appears that way in the summarised text of Diodorus.

Maybe but Diodorus is quite categorical that the new army was raised within a few days. (Certainly later (XVIII.59) it is the same force which he ‘decamps’ with to Cilicia)
XVIII.53.6 “When the siege had lasted a year and hope of safety had been abandoned, there suddenly appeared an unexpected deliverance from his plight; for Antigonus, who was besieging him and bent on destroying him, changed his plan, invited him to share in his own undertakings, and after receiving an oath-bound pledge, freed him from the siege. Thus unexpectedly saved after a considerable time, he stayed for the present in Cappadocia, where he gathered together his former friends and those who had once served under him and were now wandering about the country. Since he was highly esteemed, he quickly found many men to share in his expectations and to enlist for the campaign with him. In the end, within a few days, in addition to the five hundred friends who had been besieged in the fortress with him, he had more than two thousand soldiers who followed him of their own free will. With the aid of Fortune he gained so great an increase in power that he took over the royal armies and championed the kings against those who had boldly tried to end their rule. But we shall relate these events in more detail a little later in their proper place.”

The raising of this small army obviously occurred prior to Eumenes moving to Cilicia…..and Diodorus/Hieronymous is quite categorical that the troops were raised within days, and that they followed ‘of their own free will’. Since the Persian Satrapies were a form of feudalism, Cappadocians might be raised/conscripted by their local Lords, but were in no position to follow anybody ‘of their own free will’. This sounds like Macedonians e.g. Eumenes bodyguard, who had something to fear if they tried to join Antigonus.

Eumenes’ Cappadoccians are not “conscripted’; the source material states that he promised his volunteers freedom from taxes et al. The Cappadoccians in the army of Orcynii were volunteers. They might well be persuaded to continue throwing in their lot once more.......
As to Macedonians “wandering about the country” (the expanses of Cappadoccia), Eumenes had been locked up for a year. It is rather odd to expect that they’d be “wandering about the country” a year later with no employer and, a fortiori, no pay on the off chance that Eumenes might survive his incarceration. Even less likely that Eumenes, “within a few days” of that release, gathered them all together.

Since Nora was on the border of Cappadocia, if the troops were Cappadocian, they would presumably have dispersed to their homes, and not be ‘wandering about the country’ at all. They were therefore not ‘locals/Cappadocian’, and the only likely alternative is that they were Macedonian strangers. ‘Wandering about the country’ sounds like a euphemism for brigandage in a hostile Cappadocia.
Clearly the men were in a body, and nearby, when Eumenes left the fortress of Nora, to join him so quickly.

The philoi and those Eumenes managed to garner (“who’d served him before”) are more likely his satrapal attendees and his “paides” (who appear in both great battles). The notion that “philoi” is normally applied to Macedonians cannot stand. Philip II opened the hetairoi to many a non-Macedonian and the retinues of the successors numbered many a Greek philoi.

…Nevertheless the vast majority of ‘philoi’ were fellow Macedonians, and Greeks and Persian ‘philoi’ were a distinct minority, if not rare. ‘Satrapal attendees’ had estates to look after, and if a band of Macedonian desperados/bodyguard etc might survive a year of brigandage (doing much the same as they had done under Alexander), how much more unlikely is it that ‘paides/youth/pages’ would do so? Nor can there possibly have been anything like 2,000 ‘paides’!!!

We can add to this Diodorus' insistence that Antigonus did, indeed, take over Eumenes' army when he reports Antigonus' intentions after the death of Antipater (18.50.1 & 3 ):

That is not in dispute – but it would be very unlikely that every man-jack went over, and I believe that Antigonus taking over the ‘mercenaries’ and bulk of the army is quite right – but that those with homes to go to probably did disperse, and those, such as Macedonians/Bodyguards, who for some reason ( dislike/fear/loyalty to Eumenes) did not wish to join Antigonus did indeed “wander about the country” until Eumenes re-united them – after all the crafty Eumenes certainly didn’t intend to hole up in the impregnable Nora fortress for ever! I think there is no discrepancy between Plutarch and Diodorus here, especially as they are both largely drawing on the same source….Antigonus took over 'the army' but not all of it. Several thousand 'dispersed' and stayed loyal to Eumenes.

But in addition to all this you have not said where, at the feast, the 3,000 Hypaspists were – certainly not with “the mercenaries and the mass of the allies” ( Persian archers and slingers for the most part) in the outer ring. They can only plausibly be in the next inner ring ( also next largest in numbers):
“the circuit of the second was of eight stades, and in it were the Macedonian Silver Shields and those of the Companions(Hetairoi) who had fought under Alexander”(XIX.22.2)

…as we agree these are not the cavalry, who are in an inner ring, and are therefore Alexander’s veteran ‘pezhetairoi’. Only fellow Macedonian veterans would have been accepted as equals by the ‘Argyraspides’, and only to current Macedonian Hypaspists would ex-Hypaspists yield pride of place in battle.

There can therefore be little doubt that the 2,000 plus referred to, ultimately 3,000 or so Hypaspists, are Macedonian veterans ( where are these veterans otherwise in the orders of battle for Parataikene/Gabiene? )

[Paralus]

I have edited a post twice that adresses the many points raised by Paul Mac but, unfortunately, it still resembles a 2,000 word paper! A final series of ruthless cuts may yet reduce it to a decent fit if not incomprehensibility! Meantime we can sort the below...

Also, as Paralus relates, Antigenes demands that the right to appoint a commander should be that of the ‘Silvershields’ alone. That would hardly be necessary if they comprised the bulk of the Macedonians present, since they would have a majority of votes (3,000+)at a ‘Macedonian Assembly’ – but would be necessary if they could be outvoted by Eumenes' Macedonian cavalry and infantry together.

This is to misread the text. Rezpka (along with Hammond) too asserts this is an "assembly of the Makedones" and whilst it would likely be churlish to suggest such, they do so as it suits their view of Argead Macedonia as a federal constitutional monarchy of some nature. The text of Diodorus clearly indicates that this is a meeting of the hegemones, strategoi and satraps. They debate not only the command but also a procedure for so deciding it: there is nothing to put to an "assembly of the Makedones". Peukestas asserts that he should command "because of the number of soldiers who followed him on the campaign and because of his high rank under Alexander". His soldiers are not in the meeting; he claims his right on the basis of the fact that he commands the satrapal coalition. Antigenes points out that he commands the Macedonians who actually matter and so are a better basis for the decision: he speaks for them for they have already backed Eumenes' royal appointment of strategos autokrator. In the end they resolve that the "satraps and generals who had been selected by the mass of the army" should meet in the Alexander tent. These are the notables already in these positions for it is hardly likely that the army is about to review the satrapal appointments of Triparadeisos.

As an aside, it is most likely that this is the first appearance of the "Alexander tent" device. Although Diodorus places it originally in Cilicia, this is likely an anticipatory doublet as there was no contested command in Cilicia as Diodorus' narrative makes plain. The first instance of serious agitation and contest for his command is here in Susiane.

[Paullus Scipio]

This is to misread the text. Rezpka (along with Hammond) too asserts this is an "assembly of the Makedones"

To paraphrase; "This is to misread Paullus Scipio" :lol: :lol:
I agree that it is a discussion taking place of the Commanders and Leading figures - even though Eumenes has been appointed Commander-in-Chief in Asia by Olympias and the Regents, the other leading 'Makedones' don't take kindly to serving under a mere Greek. Nevertheless, the matter will, in the normal course of events, be referred to an "Assembly of the Makedones" ( c.f. many other examples e.g. the Assembly after the death of Perdiccas to pick a new Regent - even if the assembly was not the real power, it was necessary to observe the forms). Peukestes first tries to cajole the 'Macedonians', but having failed, demands command of the Army, because he has brought the most soldiers, similarly Antigenes argues that the decision should rest solely with his 'Argyraspides', probably for the reason given, namely that he might not win a vote in an 'Assembly of the Makedones',( which in fact does not occur) which Eumenes cunningly resolves by setting up 'The Tent of Alexander' as a sort of temple to him and having the commanders meet 'under Alexander' to make decisions .....anyway, we digress mightily from the point, which is that there were undoubtedly Macedonian troops other than the Argyraspides in Eumenes armies..... I hope there is no dispute as to this before Eumenes ends up in Nora? Afterward, I have already stated reasons for thinking the 2,000 plus foot after Nora, and the Companions/Pezhetairoi/Veterans of Alexander who share the honours of the Argyraspides at Peukestes feast (another attempt to win over the troops), and the 'Hypaspists' who take precedence over the Argyraspides are essentially the same body of troops and clearly Macedonian, and if further evidence were needed, there is Ptolemy's interference - he sends a letter addressed to "to the Silver Shields and to the other Macedonians with Eumenes..."( XVIII.62.4 and 63.1 and that these Macedonians are not merely officers is shown by 63.3 "At the reading of this letter the commanders and all the Macedonians found themselves in great perplexity..." and that these are not merely the Argyraspides is confirmed by terms such as "the crowd" and "the soldiers", referring to these men....

One point I should clarify from earlier, and that is that Eumenes had very few 'Macedonian' cavalry, most were 'local' Asiatics and it is the cavalry Cappadocians whom Eumenes promises freedom from taxes -"immunity from contributions and tributes' Plutarch "Life of Eumenes"(IV)

Shall we get back to the subject matter of this thread and discuss who exactly who were the 'dory/aspis' armed Macedonian troops? Fred has already touched on this......

[Paralus]

This is to misread the text. Rezpka (along with Hammond) too asserts this is an "assembly of the Makedones"

To paraphrase; "This is to misread Paullus Scipio" :lol: :lol:
I agree that it is a discussion taking place of the Commanders and Leading figures - even though Eumenes has been appointed Commander-in-Chief in Asia by Olympias and the Regents, the other leading 'Makedones' don't take kindly to serving under a mere Greek. Nevertheless, the matter will, in the normal course of events, be referred to an "Assembly of the Makedones" ......

The letters from the regent, Polyperchon, and Olympias had a strong effect upon the rank and file and the lower officers: loyalty to the Argead house was strong. That it was so for those that Curtius called the "principes" is a nonsense. These Macedonian grandees were out for anything they could get and none of this was ever to be put to any puported "assembly of the Makedones". Peucestas had bugger all of these (10,000+ Persians and "Asiatics", 3,000 "trained and armed in the Macedonian fashon", and cavalry) and thus had no constituency aside from those that made up his Macedonian somatophylakes. Why put his claims to an "assembly" he had precious little representation in? The other satraps had even less. It is patently clear that Eumenes had the "controlling" Macedonians and Antigenes - who supported Eumenes well enough to be burnt alive by Antigonus - agreed.

You make far too much of the puported notion of Eumenes' hypaspists "taking precedence" over the Argyraspides. Their reputation, as Diodorus makes utterly plain, was "the spearhead of the army". There existed many a hypaspist corps in these years and they cared little: they were the Argyraspides and others may be whomever they were called and wherever they were stationed. If there is anything clear in Diodours 18-19 it is that Antigenes supported Eumenes (and the royal house against the rebel Antigonus) and Eumenes' decisions in the field were paramount.

Edit (to save cluttering up the coming "paper"):

...there is Ptolemy's interference - he sends a letter addressed to "to the Silver Shields and to the other Macedonians with Eumenes..."( XVIII.62.4 and 63.1 and that these Macedonians are not merely officers is shown by 63.3 "At the reading of this letter the commanders and all the Macedonians found themselves in great perplexity..."

That is not correct. Ptolemy, at 18.62.1), only sends letters to the Silver Shields and to the commander(s) of the Cyinda garrisons:

[Ptolemy] kept sending to the commanders of the Silver Shields, exhorting them not to pay any attention to Eumenes, whom all the Macedonians had condemned to death. Likewise he sent to those who had been placed in command of the garrisons in Cyinda...

At 18.62.4 it is Antigonus who sends Philotas (the former satrap of Cilicia) into Cyinda to incite rebellion against Eumenes. As Eumenes is in Cyinda to draw money, plainly the Macedonian garrison is "with him" and Philiotas likely knows these men (as do the 30 "meddlesome Macedonians"). It is instructive that is is the Silver Shields who are the focus of attention ("...whom he [Antigonus] instructed to meet separately with Antigenes and Teutamus, the commanders of the Silver Shields, and through them to organize some plot against Eumenes"; "get in touch with their acquaintances and fellow citizens among the Silver Shields"; "sending to the commanders of the Silver Shields") and remain so throughout the campaign (examples in earlier posts). It is clear the Silver Shields are the bulk of any "Macedonians", certainly the most important, and that those Macedonians also present are far more likely to be those of the Cyinda garrisons: neither Ptolemy nor Antigonus wanted Eumenes to lay hands on the funds in that fortress.

...there were undoubtedly Macedonian troops other than the Argyraspides in Eumenes armies..... I hope there is no dispute as to this before Eumenes ends up in Nora?

I need to finish the paper... it addresses this in full.