The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[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.