Interpreting a Line From Q. Curtius Rufus

[rocktupac]

I would like your opinion on the matter:

A line in Q. Curtius Rufus (9.3.21) says Alexander received 25,000 new suits of armor while in India, and that he ordered the old ones to be burned. Do you think these were suits of bronze which newly arrived, or suits of linen armor known as the linothorax?

I realize it's up to interpretation and we will never really know, but what have you taken this to mean? I'm curious. Thanks.

[Paralus]

This question could easily open up a can of Indian asps – forget the worms.

Didodorus, describing the same thing, uses the term panopliai. This, as the LSJ will tell you, is the armour of a hoplite: “shield, helmet, breast plate, greaves, sword, and lance”. Simple eh? Not on your nelly. Just what was the hoplite’s panoply at the later part of the fourth century? Even more so, how much relevance does it have to a Macedonian army?

The fact that the old armour is burned is little clue: the aspis and pelte were wooden with metal cover and they will burn. The body armour may have been a “linothorax” (more likely quilted than “glued”). Then again, it may have been bronze covered leather or a full bronze cuirass of one or another description. The former two would burn.

I would think that the hypaspists (certainly royal) will have had a bronze cuirass (muscled or otherwise) as will have the nobility and officers. The front ranks of the pezhetairoi may also have been fitted so.

It is possible the term “panopliai” is used in a generic sense describing the armour sent east - rather than going into detail. Certainly Justin has (unsurprisingly) confused the issue by describing Alexander as fitting out his army in silver. It is clear, from following events, that only the hypaspists received such armour.

[artemisia]

When you take a look at the weapons from the tomb of Philipp II. in Vergina, the helmet and the cuirass were made of iron, the last covered with linen plus leather attachments. The sword too was from iron with ivory and gold inlays. After the indian monsuns, iron panoplies will have corroded, look very dirty and are giving not enough protection anymore, because they will break easilier.
By burning you can remove the organic parts from the iron (which have stick to it because of corrosion) and use the iron for other purposes.

[agesilaos]

Whilst the equipment of the Macedonian phalanx is controversial there is good reason to believe it was lighter than that of their Greek counterparts. In India Arrian has Alexander operate with flying columns of 'the nimblest of the phalanx' hoi kouphatatoi ton phalangon - you may see this mistranslated as 'the lightest armed' but that error should have been corrected in editions more modern than Brunt's Loeb (he corrects his text at the end of his introduction. On one occaision these are styled 'the most nimble and the best equipped ' (sorry, Arrianless so no refs to hand) now this means that men whose equipment suited them for mobile operations were the heavist equpped since best must mean most heavy in this context, this favours a linothorax over the more rigid and weighty metal alternatives. The less well equipped will have lacked even these.

These men will be the file leaders, half-file leaders and the double-pay men, all of whom could form the front rank of the phalanx if it lessened its depth as at Issos so, unlike the ridiculous old idea of differing lengths of sarissa operational efficiency would be unimpaired.

The iron cuirass at Vergina is top notch prestige armour and unlikely to bear much relation to the everyday equipment of the peasant grunt in the phalanx.

I would not put too much weight on Curtius' numbers as I do not believe him to have used Ptolemy for this notice, however assuming it was Kleitarchos it does at least show that it was credible to broad contempoaries for a phalangite's equipment to be burned.

[Paralus]

In India Arrian has Alexander operate with flying columns of 'the nimblest of the phalanx' hoi kouphatatoi ton phalangon - you may see this mistranslated as 'the lightest armed' but that error should have been corrected in editions more modern than Brunt's Loeb (he corrects his text at the end of his introduction.

This is constantly translated so – generally to a purpose. Which purpose – or at least Minor M Markle’s purpose – being to prove that the hypaspists must have been hoplite troops. This because they are often mentioned in the same groupings of troops given said missions. A phalanx is, to state the obvious, a phalanx. A phalanx of hoplites is as rigid as any other – and just as vulnerable on its right. Which then says, what exactly, about those troops sent with them in these "flying columns" - that Polyperchon's brigade were nimble hoplites? The aesthetairoi, who assaulted Tyre across a bridge on boats tied together, must also have been "lighter armed" (to use the argument's preferred translation). Markle - and those who follow his argument - would have it that Arrian means that the hoplite dory is "lighter armed" than the sarissa. So we replace a 5.5-6kg pike with 6-7kg aspis.

A far easier solution is that the hypaspists - the most experienced and "professional" citizen troops in the army - were armed as the occasion demanded. Lochoi from other brigades may well have been armed as required: pelte and one or more longche for exapmple.

The aesthetairoi, from "upper Macedonia", may well owe their arms to the Lynkestian hoplites Perdiccas II faced during the civil war of 424. These are the only hoplites (of Macedonian origin) the sources mention; Perdiccas having to collect his hoplites from "the Hellenes living about" lower Macedonia:

Thuc. 4.124:
Perdiccas’ army consisted of the forces of his Macedonian subjects together with a force of hoplites from the Hellenes living in Macedonia (enoikountôn Hellênôn hoplitas)…

There were altogether about 3,000 Hellenic hoplites (hoplitikon tôn Hellênôn trischilioi)…

Then the Lynkestian hoplites (Lunkêstôn hoplitôn) came down from their hill to join the cavalry and to offer battle.

These men will be the file leaders, half-file leaders and the double-pay men, all of whom could form the front rank of the phalanx if it lessened its depth as at Issos so, unlike the ridiculous old idea of differing lengths of sarissa operational efficiency would be unimpaired.

This is a classic: the front ranks might have twelve foot sarissae which graduated to eighteen foot sarissae as the ranks deepened. All so as to have an even row of protruding spear points. As Agesilaos intimates above, this will have worked wonders for Alexander’s halving of his depth and doubling of his front at Issos. It will have worked even less for his drill in 336 before Clietus’ Illyrians.

Amazing how it never quite goes away though.

In general I would think that the average phalangite was provided a quilted linen jerkin. The officers and front rankers may have been issued a metal cuirass or possibly leather. I should think that the hypaspist corps might have been fitted like the phalanx officers and the agema of the hypaspists – the royal hypaspists – with a metal cuirass. Either way, it appears the hypaspist corps was quite adept at operations requiring both the usual phalanx fighting skills (and its equipment) and those resembling a hoplite (Tyre for example). Perhaps they were more of the “Iphicratean” type and carried a twelve foot "sarissa"?

[agesilaos]

The correct translation of the word 'kouphos' is clearly important here so let us consider its use in Arrian;
I 27 viii kai epi toutous euthys analabontous te toxotas kai tas ton akontiston taxeis kai ton hopliton hosoi kouphoteroi epegagen
And he immediately moved against them with the archers, the units of javelinmen and the most kouphos of the hoplites
IV 6 iii analabonoun ton te hetairon hippeon tous hemiseas kai tous hypaspistas xympantas kai tous toxatas kai tous Agrianas kai tes phalangos tous kouphotatous eiei hos epi Marakanda.
He proceeded therefore against Maracanda with half the cavalry of the Companions, all the Hypaspists, the archers and the Agrianes and the most kouphos of the phalanx.
III 23 iii analabontous te hypaspistas kai tes Makedonikes phalangos tous kouphotatous kai ton toxoton estin hous eiei
He proceeded against them with the Hypaspists, the most kouphos of the Macedonian phalanx and the archers
IV 28 viii autos de tous toxotas te analabon kai tous Agrianas kai ten Koiou taxin kai apo tes alles phalangos epilexas tous kouphotatous te kai ama euoplotatous kai ton hetairon hippeon dichosious kai hippotoxotas es ekaton prosege tei petrai
Then he proceeded to the Rock with the archers and the Agrianes and Koinos' unit and from the rest of the phalanx he chose the most kouphos and the best armed, 200 Companion cavalry and 100 horse-archers.
This last should be enough to give the game away; the 'lightest armed' are unlikely to be the 'best armed'. But there is more
II 4 vi ton psilon hosoi kouphatatoi
The most kouphos of the light armed
similarly
VI 18 v ton psilon tous kouphotatous
And
III 18 v ton toxoton tous kouphotatous
The most kouphos of the archers
Now, agile, mobile or nimble all seem much better suggestions than the 'light armed' alternative. The idea of hoplite equpment is a non-starter although the soldiers are called 'hoplites' in the first two books this really has no technical force in merely means an armed man, which is, indeed, what it does mean literally. The phalanx relied on a uniformity of weapons when in the field when acting in detached roles it would be much more natural for the Macedonians to grab some javelins and revert to the peltast role they had acted in prior to Philip.

I do not believe the asthetairoi were from 'Upper Macedonia' at all so the case of the Lyncestian hoplites is moot other than it strikes me as another instance of a general usage of the word to mean no more than soldier. Hoplites were as much an economic phenomenon and Lyncestis just did not have the economy to produce 'hoplites' in the Southern Greek sense.

[Paralus]

Now, agile, mobile or nimble all seem much better suggestions than the 'light armed' alternative. The idea of hoplite equpment is a non-starter although the soldiers are called 'hoplites' in the first two books this really has no technical force in merely means an armed man, which is, indeed, what it does mean literally.

It does indeed seem a better fit and is, in my opinion, what is meant. It strikes me as odd that some suggest that hoplites – in their technical sense – are “lighter armed”. Whilst one concedes that clambering up mountain tracks (the Persian gates for example) or chasing about with the cavalry on skirmishing missions with a sarissa is out of the question, the argument that classic hoplites are much better at this is a furphy. I’d love to see a fully armed hoplite play hamippoi. I, for one, would soon tire of lumbering about in cuirass (be it quilted / layered linen or metal), greaves, dory and 6kg aspis. Not entirely certain that I’d carry such a panoply too bloody far up a mountain either – not to say a scaling ladder.

Arrian does use hoplite in a “non-technical” sense. As he sometimes muddles up other technical terms. He is, in his defence, writing centuries after the event and at a time when this armament had well passed from any active service (discounting the exaggerated hoplomachus of the Coliseum) and no one was about to point out his “lax” use of the term. Similarly Diodorus is using panoplaia in a general sense much in the way he seems to use hypaspist (the “camels’ fort” where he has “ladder bearers” and men who ascend the ladder under their shields as “shield bearers”).

Hoplon does indeed refer to “tools” or, in this sense, tools of war: a panoply – the common misconception is that it refers to the shield which is, of course, the aspis.

The phalanx relied on a uniformity of weapons when in the field when acting in detached roles it would be much more natural for the Macedonians to grab some javelins and revert to the peltast role they had acted in prior to Philip.

With which I’d agree.

I do not believe the asthetairoi were from 'Upper Macedonia' at all so the case of the Lyncestian hoplites is moot other than it strikes me as another instance of a general usage of the word to mean no more than soldier. Hoplites were as much an economic phenomenon and Lyncestis just did not have the economy to produce 'hoplites' in the Southern Greek sense

Mmmm…going against the conventional wisdom? I suppose the only real argument is inference from the fact that the commander of the unit (as with some other phalanx units) were from the nobility of the upper cantons. The assumption has always been that the brigades were regional and commanded by regional nobility. Tell me more my good man…

As to the use of hoplites in Thucydides, the fellow is not generally one for being lax with his terms. He wrote at a time when no one could mistake what he was referring to when he wrote Lunkêstôn hoplitôn (Lyncestian hoplites). Also he is, in his usual way, clear that the king, Perdiccas, did not posses any hoplites other than those Hellênôn hoplitas (Hellenic hoplites) living about lower Macedonia. Add to that his description of the Macedonians and “other barbaroi” assembled by Perdiccas and it seems – to me anyway – that Thucydides was making a point of Perdiccas’ lack of these heavy infantrymen: even the Lynkestians had a few!

It is possible that the great man had a lax moment but, on the whole, I think he meant what he wrote.

[agesilaos]

Yes the brigades were raised on a regional basis and commanded by the local nobility; but it does not follow from this that they had different titles. At Tyre Arrian has Koinos' 'taxis ton asthetairon kaloumenon' man a ship to assault the walls; taxis is taken by all (save P. Goukowsky,'Makedonika' [in French]) to indicate a whole phalanx unit when in just means a unit and that can, indeed must, mean a sub-unit here; 1,500 men cannot fit on a triereme, even A B Bosworth in his 'Historical Commentary' says of the other ship carrying the Hypaspistai 'surely not the whole 3,000'.

Alexander may have had quinqueres available and Roman quinqueremes carried 120 marines and since they were geared up for boarding this can be taken as a maximum, this represents 1/8 of a phalanx battalion i.e two men in each file. If we assume that the officering of the mixed phalanx at the end of the reign is the same as for the Macedonian at the beginning (by no means certain) then we have a file-leader, a double-pay man , a ten-stater man and the file closer distinguished from the rank and file. These are the men later referred to as the most kouphos, in my interpretation. The ten stater man belies their title, they all earn ten staters or more and can be called dekastateroi, whether the contraction to asthetairoi was contemporary or later due to scribal confusion is indeterminable but the universal use of the word 'kaloumenoi' (so-called') to qualify 'asthetairoi' is sure indication that the term is not official; it is either a contemporary nickname and Ptolemy is indicating that or it is a scribal plea help (I favour the former, although unlike pezhetairos asthetairos appears in no lexicon or scribal gloss).

That is the case for. The case against the Upper Macedonian argument is circumstantial; but then so is the case for. It does not strike me as unifying to give the same class of people different titles according to where they come from in the kingdom; and to have that mean 'closest-in-kin' a deliberate provocation; these men werer so jealous of their priorities that their position in the battle line was dependent on drawing lots so as to offend no one.

The lack of 'towns' in Upper Macedonia disposes of Hammond's suggestion; Griffith et al who see the ast- prefix as related to aristos and so an honorific title akin to 'King's Own' fall foul of Macedonian's jealousy; Alexander could not honour one unit without alienating the other five.

Also, each of these arguments is founded on the searh for an explanation of the prefix ast-, a line based on the analogy with pez-hetairoi. However, it is by no means certain that pezhetairoi refers to the ordinary phalanx. It is much more likely they were part of the Hypaspist corps (Ihave argued this elsewhere). The only term Arrian definitely uses for the rank and file is 'hoplite' ! Take the hetairea from the commonality of the phalanx and it is certain it was not extended to that part that came from Upper Macedonia.

Conventional wisdom depends more on the former and only rarely touches the latter.

[Paralus]

It is much more likely they were part of the Hypaspist corps (Ihave argued this elsewhere).

Can you do me the favour of arguing it here?? I’d be interested to read it.

At Tyre Arrian has Koinos' 'taxis ton asthetairon kaloumenon' man a ship to assault the walls; taxis is taken by all (save P. Goukowsky,'Makedonika' [in French]) to indicate a whole phalanx unit when in just means a unit and that can, indeed must, mean a sub-unit here; 1,500 men cannot fit on a triereme, even A B Bosworth in his 'Historical Commentary' says of the other ship carrying the Hypaspistai 'surely not the whole 3,000'.

Quite. As I argued on another thread the hypapspists in this instance were near certainly the “royal” hypaspists – the king’s “squires” or shield bearers. The others of the aesthetairoi and the “regular” hypaspists likely led the rest into the town elsewhere after the initial breach.

Your comment about the titulature is correct. That the Macedonians prized their nomenclature is clearly demonstrated in the “mutiny” at Opis. It underlies much of the resentment at Alexander’s “orientalising”: that these barbarians were to be accorded such acknowledgement was beyond the pale.

AB Bosworth has argued – recently at the Alexander symposium in Clemson – that both Philip and Alexander (especially Philip) fostered this combative rivalry amongst their troops. I wish to heaven that I had his current email address (he retired from the Uni of WA last year) so as he might email me a copy!!

… whether the contraction to asthetairoi was contemporary or later due to scribal confusion is indeterminable but the universal use of the word 'kaloumenoi' (so-called') to qualify 'asthetairoi' is sure indication that the term is not official; it is either a contemporary nickname and Ptolemy is indicating that or it is a scribal plea help (I favour the former, although unlike pezhetairos asthetairos appears in no lexicon or scribal gloss).

I think Bosworth has laid to rest the “scribal error”. The term, I think, definitely existed. I agree that it began as a “nickname” as is, to me, clearly indicated by “so-called” as you say. It likely later became standard (for that army – not later) as Arrian would seem to show by Alexander wishing to create a Persian aesthetairoi. A little like the hypaspist corps insisting upon their uniqueness as Philip’s and Alexander’s original hypaspists with the corporate term Argyraspids.

It has been argued that these troops were hoplite armed and so performed the duty of guarding the sarisa-armed battions. This is an argument run to also define the hypapspists as hoplite armed. I always find it interesting that Krateros’ brigade did not ever warrant such protection or that, at Paraetecene and Gabiene, Antigonus’s 7,000 plus “Macedonian phalangites” did not require same – only the heavy cavalry abuts these troops. It is possible, I suppose, that Hieronymus has not bothered to tell us that a portion of those Macedonians were hypaspists (hoplite armed or otherwise). Given his meticulous rendering of both arrays at Paraetecene I’d think that unlikely. Alson Diodorus' description of the argyraspids "falling heavily" upon Antigonus's Macedonians and epigoni at Gabiene would see them as some sort of Macedonian souvlaki were they hoplite armed for this encounter.

[jan]

All of this was very interesting, and I have read each entry, but I should like to know to whom did Alexander send the order, how was it made, who delivered it, and how long did it take to arrive so that these poor men who had had their uniforms destroyed by the elements were finally once again wearing proper uniforms. In each city that Alexander founded did he set up shop for all the personnel to help equip the armies or not? How far back did this order have to go to get fulfilled? To Susa? Where exactly did he have the personnel to find the materials to fill this order?

I know that for Alexander himself that he had individuals who made his supplies, tools, weapons, uniforms, helmets, etc. but for the general army, were there personnel in camp able to do it, or did it have to go to a distant city? Do the sources tell us the answers to these questions? Thanks!
Sorry I am not a history student here, but I am interested anyway.

[agesilaos]

Good question; there were undoubtedly local arms workers and Alexander must have had his own smiths and armourers, for day to day repair work, whom he could set to supervise any major re-fit. The army that marched into India was probably equipped with all sorts of armour that the soldiers had picked up on the way. The use of local materials may have meant that linen was replaced with cotton - which later Indians used for armour, presumably quilted or laminated.

We can but guess, logistics was something our sources tend to ignore and the few hints we can uncover may be less reliable than we pretend; after all if the only evidence is in the incidental detail of a late and uninterested secondary source it would be as well not to set great store on it, common sense is just as good a guide in this sort of instance.

[Paralus]

We can but guess, logistics was something our sources tend to ignore and the few hints we can uncover may be less reliable than we pretend; after all if the only evidence is in the incidental detail of a late and uninterested secondary source it would be as well not to set great store on it, common sense is just as good a guide in this sort of instance.

So true, so true. One can add decent descriptions of arms and armour to that. It's a bit like modern day chroniclers seeing little point in descritions of an M-16 for soldiers fighting in recent wars - or in depth discussions of the "average" soldier's uniform and kit. That Curtius mentions the re-arming and Arrian does not should not be taken as meaning Curtius has invented the story. Far from it: it had to happen given this army was now seven or more years into an invasion that had it on constant war footing. One can well believe that the state of armour issued in Macedonia some time prior to the invasion ( even that replaced in Asia) will have been far from pristine. God knows Alexander could, by now, well afford it.

Arrian may have found it "unnecessary" to his narrative. Given that he provides little or no information at all about events surrounding the time spent at Hydaspes (aside from repairing Beucephala and a paragraph on preparations for the coming voyage down river), it may be lost or he failed to record it for whatever reason.

On the original question, that the armour was "burnt" almost certainly indicates it was not metallic. It was, likely, linen or leather. Its replacement will be unlikely to be much different other than the fact that possibly Asian craftsmen manufactured them.

[agesilaos]

The only suspicious thing is the number, 25,000; there were only, 9,000 phalangites, 3,000 hypaspists and maybe 2000 cavalry who required armour which, even allowing a seventh phalanx, which we probably should yields 15,500, wonder what the 10,000 spares were for!

Inter haecº Memnon ex Thracia in supplementum equitum V milia, praeter eos ab Harpalo peditum VII milia adduxerat armaque XXV milibusº auro et argento caelata pertulerat, quis distributis vetera cremari iussit.

Just so we have the quote, but more suspicions; Memnon send 5,000 cavalry from Thrace yet Thrace had rebelled and was not under control, in fact I think Memnon had been killed. 5,000 is alot of cavalry to come from Thrace in any case, the whole levy of a major tribe such as the Odrysai. Harpalus' 7,000 foot don't ring true either since he was based in Asia Minor it would be adashed long walk! I'll check it on a map. The armour is associated with these soldiers so must be equally dubious.

Equipment would have had to be replaced but the details of this notice seem at odds with probability. Compositionally too just one chapter before Coenus had been whinging that their equipment had all worn out, making this read like Alexander's response to that objection to going on.

[Paralus]

The only suspicious thing is the number, 25,000; there were only, 9,000 phalangites, 3,000 hypaspists and maybe 2000 cavalry who required armour which, even allowing a seventh phalanx, which we probably should yields 15,500, wonder what the 10,000 spares were for!

The figures have always been an issue. That Curtius has, in some manner, garbled these figures is quite possible. At tleast his numbers – if not the sources of those numbers – are more credible than Diodorus’ army of reinforcements (17.95.4):

At this juncture there arrived from Greece allied and mercenary troops under their own commanders, more than thirty thousand infantry and a little less than six thousand cavalry.

Interestingly, the cavalry figures are reasonably compatible. Diodorus too mentions the “panopliai” that had been sent with this caravan:

They brought with them elegant suits of armour for twenty-five thousand foot soldiers, and a hundred talents of medical supplies. These he distributed to the soldiers.

The tradition is carried by Justin as well where he would have the whole army formed into argyraspids. It is that name that lends some weight to the re-arming. The “elegant” suits of armour “emblazoned with gold and silver” surely refer to the hypaspists and the king’s companions. That the hypaspists corps would refer to itself as the argyraspids (to differentiate themselves from the multiplying “hypaspists” after Alexander’s death) surely indicates that the re-arming took place. That 25,000 suits were supplied is problematical as you say.

The Memnon point and Thrace I’ll get to on the weekend: I’ve a meeting to attend in the city and its over 40 degrees centigrade here. I believe I nedd a couple of cubic metres of refrigerated air to follow me!

[marcus]

I’ve a meeting to attend in the city and its over 40 degrees centigrade here. I believe I nedd a couple of cubic metres of refrigerated air to follow me!

You can have some of our English air if you like, Paralus - it's bloomin' freezing over here at the moment. What I wouldn't give for a spot of 40 degrees ...

ATB