The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[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.