The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paullus Scipio]

Michael wrote:

That's possible though the passages used to describe the hypaspists as "light armed" are far more appropriately rendered as "agile" or "mobile" - either of which might fit with "unburdened". Possibly euzonous might have been more apt for unencumbered? Diodorus uses this for Antigonus’ force sent to confront Eumenes in Cilicia (18.73.1).

But in Polybius, ‘euzanoi’/unencumbered or lightly equipped, tends to have a more technical meaning – though as with ‘speira’ Polybius uses it in both a technical and a more generic sense at different times.(e.g. ‘euzanoi’ as a specific troop type – Polybius V.79.3 “armed in the manner of euzonoi” but also describing troops as ‘euzanoi’ who include thorakitai, psiloi, cretans and thureophoroi – so must be in a generic sense) Euzanoi has also been plausibly explained as a term used to describe ‘peltasts’ who have set aside their sarissa( and perhaps body armour too?) for expeditions/mobility, thus reverting to true peltasts – see Duncan Head “Slingshot” 205, 1999 pp.58-59 and Ueda-Sarson “Infantry of the Successors pt “2 online)

I'd see it more as agile or mobile troops rather than strictly unburdened (though clearly in pursuit mode this was the case). I would need to go find all the passages brought to bear by Markle and others but, from memory, we have the best armed and lightest (to go with Markle) of the phalanx infantry at one stage as well as the "lightest armed" of the light armed (or archers). Plainly Arrian (or his source) mean to imply "mobile". If we are able to select the most agile or mobile (as well as best armed) of the phalanx then such a description hardly implies much about the hypaspists.

As you say, “mobile/agile” troops must be unencumbered, especially if they are the ‘best armed’ – if they don’t lay aside weaponry, then it can really only be baggage etc.
Also, troops don’t come any more lightly armed than shieldless, unarmoured archers/light armed, so who can the ‘lightest armed’ of these be , if not those who leave their bagggae behind with the remainder? Troops still do this today – dropping their packs to become ‘lighter armed’ and leaving them for others to bring up…..

Markle goes on to say that "on the other hand, sarissa-armed Macedonian foot had no need of the corselet since they were protected by their serried mass of pikes and small telamon shields" and later "the name itself of this special corps (hypaspists) suggests that its most significant piece of equipment was the shield, which would distinguish them from sarissa-armed foot whose twenty four-inch target was relatively insignificant." The clear implication being that sarisa-armed infantry were ill-equipped to complete the roles performed by the hoplite-armed hypaspists. Yet he has these same troops armed with the doru in a subsequent paper and even gives them the hoplite aspis. This is, of course, a neat way to skirt the issue of the "relatively insignificant" twenty four inch target. Seemingly, in the world envisioned here, one can have the entire phalanx armed as hoplites when the occasion arises but hypaspists could not have stood in the pitched battle line sarisa-armed whilst using something approaching the hoplite panoply elsewhere. It seems odd that the basic infantry grunt is so well cross trained but the elite hypaspist knows only one form of arms.

I would agree with you that Markle’s arguments are illogical and his reasoning is not very plausible, which isn’t to say that Hypaspists were not ‘dory/aspis’ armed ( and perhaps ‘longche too, like the ‘pezhetairoi’)

Markle at least acknowledges the clear description by Arrian of the conflicting stories of the weapon used in the murder of Cleitus. Here - depending on source - Alexander runs him through with a spear or a sarissa. The murder is the same, simply the weapon is different. Aside from the somatophylakes and pages, only the hypaspists performed this duty and will have held such a weapon. As well there is Phylarchos' description of the Argyraspids bearing sarisae whilst attending Alexander's tent. Markle dodges those sarisa-points by suggesting that the sarisa was a "ceremonial" guard weapon and questioning the relationship between the Argyraspids and the hypaspists. I don't think the latter is seriously questioned nowadays.

Plutarch refers to a 'dagger'. Arrian gave two variant accounts of Alexander getting hold of a weapon, and Curtius put the two accounts in tandem. N. Hammond summarise the various weapon possibilties and says 'According to Arrian (4.8.8-9) "some say that Alexander snatched a blade from one of the Somatophylakes, and others say that he snatched a pike( sarissa) from “one of the Guards(Hypaspists)”. Curtius reported that Alexander snatched a light spear( lancea = latin for longche ) from the hands of an "armiger"(one of his words for a Somatophylax), but he was deprived of it (8.1.45); whereupon he seized a "spear"(hasta = latin for Dory) from one of the "vigiles"(Guards/Hypaspists)', so you can take your pick of the different weapons!
FWIW, a sarissa is probably the worst weapon for a Guard to carry, especially inside a tent! The most suitable weapon for a Guard would be a 'longche' - the short ( hence handy) dual purpose spear/javelin.......
The ‘sarissa’ story seems unlikely and probably comes from later knowledge that the ‘sarissa’ was the Macedonian weapon. Alexander in remorse is supposed to have put the weapon butt first aginst the wall, meaning to fall on it – and this seems all but impossible with a 16 ft long pike!
All in all, not very impressive evidence for sarissa armed Hypaspists ( Phylarchus is not very credible, according to Polybius,(II.56 etc) who charges him with falsifying history, inter alia....)

The argyraspids, in my view, clearly were sarisa-armed at Gabiene (and just as likely Paraetekene). The dispositions make plain that they (and Eumenes' "hypaspists") were confronted by somewhere between 7,500-7,900 Macedonian phalanx infantry. That they "charged" such a formation in hoplite panoply will have seen them suffer somewhat severely.

This is something of a ‘myth’ – Hoplites held their own and more on numerous occasions against sarissaphoroi – Chaeronea, Issus etc

Yet here, for once, we do not have Diodorus' favourite battle topos of "the battle was hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides" before the victory. The tradition is clear that the argyraspids drove the Antigonid Macedonians into disarray and killed many of them outright.

The quick victory with few Argyraspid casualties argues for little fighting, and maybe none at all before the slaughter….since battle is largely a state of morale, consider for example that opposing hoplites sometimes gave way before contact with the Spartans. The young Macedonians, inexperienced, will have quailed before the grizzled veterans, conquerors of the World ! Consider your own favourite quote and its effect :- “you are sinning against your fathers, you degenerates! “…the Argyraspids could have been armed with anything, and the result would have been the same – certainly there was no “must have been armed with sarissa to fight sarissa” about it, so I reject such a weak argument.

The issue of the name is nowhere as significant as Markle makes out. Negelected are the references to Philip's pezhetairoi by Theopompus and Demosthenes: at some stage the unit's nomenclature changed.

I strongly doubt that this is true either. I have argued before that it is unlikely that Guards would relinquish a proud title to ordinary troops…it just does not happen. Especially when the source in question is Theopompus, who, while fairly contemporary with Philip, was an orator rather than a historian – and whose “Historiae Philipicae” even in ancient times was cut down from 58 books of wild digressions to 16 by Philip V. He tells us that Philip’s guards were called ‘pezhetairoi’. Theopompus was also known for his wild stories, so he is hardly a reliable source. Demosthenes does not in fact refer to Hypaspists as ‘pezhetaroi’. That is pure inference.

Theopompus is in any event contradicted by another source contemporary with Philip – Anaximenes ( who incidently wrote a lampoon of Theopompus), who tells us that the Macedonian army reform were started by ‘Alexander’ II (Alexander II reigned 370-368 BC; he and Perdiccas were both Philip’s elder brothers who were killed). He tells us that Alexander bestowed the name ‘Hetairoi’ on all the heavy cavalry ( probably no light at that time)and ‘all’ the infantry were called ‘pezhetairoi’. He describes the infantry being organised in units ( lochoi) cositing of files ten deep. (decades). Whether it was in fact Alexander who initiated use of the sarissa, or Philip, later as he is commonly credited with, is unknown.
The evidence of Anaximenes is probably to be preferred to Theopompus who was careless about facts, or perhaps confused about nomenclature ( c.f. Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who clearly describes Roman ‘Triarii’ but mistakenly calls them ‘principes’ – here we have Philip’s ‘Foot-companions’, and Theopompus probably was aware that ‘hetairoi/companions were a guard unit, so such a mistake would be easy.)

There was no significance - arms wise - to that original title. To go with Sean Manning's earlier post, unless it can be proved that the use is technical, we should likely see such as a shield is a shield is a shield. Not quite…see post.
The leukaspides and the chalkaspides are, to my knowledge, never claimed to have sported Argolic aspides due to their names. That will be because the "aspide" is used simply to denote a shield.

At that time the specific Argive aspis as a weapon had disappeared two generations or more before in Greece ( 250 BC -225 BC at latest), earlier in Macedon, and ‘aspis’ came to be a generic name, used in this instance in contrast to the elite ‘Peltasts’ /Guards of Philip V and Perseus.

The argyraspids will have been no different; aspide simply indicating that their shields - be they 66cm, 76cm, or 80cm in diameter - were silvered not that they were Argolic aspides.

The earlier ‘Hypaspists/Argyraspides’ were around at a time when the Argive Aspis was definitely in use in Macedon (down until the beginning of the third C BC at least). Shields above 75 cm or so diameter cannot be those of sarissaphoroi – physically impossible – and are now usually ascribed to Hellenistic cavalry.

Even so, I would concede your point here ( “What’s in a name?” ), and certainly not rely on nomenclature alone – but put together with other evidence, it does point to the probability in many experts view that the Hypaspists were most likely ‘Dory/Aspis armed.

However, it seems to me that there is much ‘jumping around’ on this thread so far. If we are to use it to discuss logically the evolution of the Argead Macedonian army, I think we should begin at the beginning and outline the probable form of the Macedonian army before ‘Philip’s reforms’ sketchy though it is. That will be the subject of a post soon……