The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth?

[Paralus]

Arrian Anab. VIIxx3 …dekadarken men tes dekados hegesthai Makedona kai epi toutoi dimoiriten Makedona kai dekastateron….epi toutois de dodeka Persas kai teleutaion tes dekados Makedona, dekastateron kai touton….

With as dekadarchs leading the dekads a Macedonian and after them a Macedonian on double pay and a ten stater man…after those twelve Persians and bringing up the rear of the file another Macedonian ten stater man…

The Greek will not allow any interpretation other than the obvious one that counting from the front of the file there was a file –leader (surprise, surprise), a double payman , a ten stater man, twelve Persians and a final ten stater man. It’s the epi toutoi(s) that make it so; translations may be praised for many reasons but these days it has more to do with readability than closeness to the text.

Thanks for that: as I related it reads as a simple description from front to rear.

Regarding the trained Persians, they do not appear in the wars of the Diadochoi the troops that do are the Pandotopai or men of every nation, who sound rather more like the bastard offspring of the camp who were meant to have been trained in the Macedonian manner. I believe these were confused by one source with the Persians brought by Peucestas, who were untrained, probably because they were both 30,000 strong.

The key being, of course, "of all nations". Hammond supposes this to be the result of Alexander’s training camps – beginning in Lydia, Lycia and Pamphylia – educating the “boys” of the east in the liberal Greek manner and Macedonian arms in the same manner of the Macedonian pages. The description (all races) is used of those in the armies of Antigonus and Eumenes (totalling some 13,000). This is only six years after Alexander’s death and I doubt that they are the bastard offspring of the camp. Whilst this is not impossible (children born in the late 330s could be 16 or 17) and Justin confuses the camp children and the epigoni (7.4.11), it is not likely. These camp children are plainly boys (at Arrian 7.12.2) who Alexander promises will be “brought up” in the Macedonian fashion. I don’t see them furnishing troops for Antigonus or Eumenes and, most likely, not until the time of Gaza at the earliest.

Alexander gave the order for the formation of the epigoni, if we can take Curtius (8.5.1) at his word, prior to invading India. This after the bloody two year insurrection centred on the “upper satrapies”. Thus the “men” Alexander wanted trained (and kept as hostages) all came from the nationalities of the satrapies bordering the north and east (Aria, Bactria, Soghdia, Parapamisadae, Arachosia, et al). We can imagine that many “nations” made up this region and thus this force was representative of the ethnic groups of the region. Plainly Alexander was planning to be using these troops in coming campaigns – well separated from their homelands.

I would find it far more logical that it was these trained troops who made up the forces so described in the campaigns of 318-316. Antigonus likely procured his from the remnants of the royal army post Triparadeisos. Eumenes from the satrapal armies – Diodorus (19.14.5) describes Peucestas as having “ten thousand Persian archers and slingers, three thousand men of every origin equipped for service in the Macedonian array”. It is possible that Peucestas had trained them but, again, more likely they were epigoni.

I would be loathe to draw too many conclusions about the fully fledged Macedonian phalanx from this one-off aberration other than to say that at the time of Alexander ‘dimoiretes ‘ meant double pay man and nothing more that later this was the pay scale of a half-file leader is irrelevant. The best argument for half-file leaders is the eight deep formation at Issos. But that does presuppose sixteen to be a full file.

Indeed. You’d be unsurprised that I’d agree with that.