The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[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.