Importance of the Agrianes

[rocktupac]

Something that really came to my attention while reading Robin Lane Fox's "Alexander" was the recognition he gives to the Agrianes (or Agrianians). Then again while re-reading Arian I found them mentioned almost every time orders were given to skirmish or engage in full battle. Others have called them the hardest and most battle-thirsty troops that loved what they did; yet others have referred to them as the "finest and most important troops." (A.R. Burn)

I can't help but feel that in the larger scope of things, these tough fighting men of Paionia are often neglected or forgotten when dealing with Alexander's military successes. They were certainly a factor in his victories, perhaps not as much as the Companion calvary, but important none the less. They were good at what they did and must have loved it.

What are some of your feelings towards or reactions to the Agrianes? I'm dying to know. They're almost obtaining a certain mythic status for me because of their military prowess despite the lack of respect given to them through history. Maybe I'm missing something or haven't read into others' work enough (though I've read a fairly large amount of Alexander material), but I think they haven't been paid their dues.

[derek]

I agree the Agrianes don't get enough acknowledgement. The thing for me is that their bond must have been they were personally loyal to Alexander. The Greek contingents (let alone foreign) were so unreliable Alexander only ever used them in a supporting role, yet the Agrianes were front row troops in just about every battle. They get included in every task force, they get taken off into the mountains, across the desert, assault this town, then that, you name it. Yet there's never any mention of them saying, hang on a minute.

I wonder how many were left by the end. They were a one-time gift from King Langarus, so can have only been two or three thousand strong to start with, and then they were certainly never reinforced from home, so how many of these lightly armoured tribesmen can have still been alive by the time Alexander returned to Babylon? Not many, I bet.

Derek

[marcus]

I wonder how many were left by the end. They were a one-time gift from King Langarus, so can have only been two or three thousand strong to start with, and then they were certainly never reinforced from home, so how many of these lightly armoured tribesmen can have still been alive by the time Alexander returned to Babylon? Not many, I bet.

Were there no reinforcements? I shall have to check back, but I have a vague recollection that Alexander did receive Agrianian reinforcements at least once. I might well be wrong.

I agree about the lack of acknowledgement - although they are always given credit for their actions, they don't always get "singled out" for special mention. Maybe Osprey need to do a new "Men-at-arms" book devoted to the light infantry in Alexander's army ... I'll suggest it to them.

ATB

[derek]

Marcus,

Reinforcements tend to be trotted out in a list and it's easy to miss or forget a mention, so if you remember seeing the Agrianes being reinforced, then maybe they were. The impression I got though, was that new reinforcements tended to come from Macedonia and mainland Greece, while Thracians/Illyrians only turned up when Alexander called for reinforcements from his satraps' garrisons, which means troops he'd brought out with him in the first place. And he never wasted the Agrianes by putting any into a garrison so reinforcements can't have come from there.

If they were reinforced from home, then it says something for their loyalty to Alexander. Agriania was beyond Macedonia's control and Langarus had been dead for a good while, and still the Agrianes volunteer to go halfway across the world and fight in Alexander's army. It makes you wonder just why the tribe was so loyal.

Derek

[marcus]

Reinforcements tend to be trotted out in a list and it's easy to miss or forget a mention, so if you remember seeing the Agrianes being reinforced, then maybe they were. The impression I got though, was that new reinforcements tended to come from Macedonia and mainland Greece, while Thracians/Illyrians only turned up when Alexander called for reinforcements from his satraps' garrisons, which means troops he'd brought out with him in the first place. And he never wasted the Agrianes by putting any into a garrison so reinforcements can't have come from there.

If they were reinforced from home, then it says something for their loyalty to Alexander. Agriania was beyond Macedonia's control and Langarus had been dead for a good while, and still the Agrianes volunteer to go halfway across the world and fight in Alexander's army. It makes you wonder just why the tribe was so loyal.

Hi Derek,

Just found the reference - Curtius 3.9.10. The reference suggests, and Heckel repeats this in the notes (in the Penguin edition), that Alexander received Agrianian reinforcements shortly before Issus; Donald Engels (in A the G and the Logistics of the Mac Army) concurs with this. When you read the sentence it could be argued that they are the same Agrianians that were with the army from the start of the campaign; but I have to say that it is more suggestive of reinforcements.

However ... these are the only Agrianian reinforcements mentioned, and we are still in 333BC - Alexander used them a lot in the following 10 years, with no other mention of replacements.

ATB

[marcus]

I wonder how many were left by the end. They were a one-time gift from King Langarus, so can have only been two or three thousand strong to start with, and then they were certainly never reinforced from home, so how many of these lightly armoured tribesmen can have still been alive by the time Alexander returned to Babylon? Not many, I bet.

I've just been trying to find out how many Agrianians left Europe with Alexander, and so far I've only been able to come up with (a) 500, and (b) that there were 1,000 archers and Agrianians. So 500 seems to be the most likely number.

Not many - and if we consider that the reinforcements I mention in my other post were therefore probably in the region of 2-300 at most, and if no more reinforcements came, then it makes their contribution even more remarkable.

There were other Thracians and Illyrians in the army. I wonder whether, at some point, they were "collected" under the name Agrianians, so making a larger force within the army?

ATB

[Phoebus]

The Greek contingents (let alone foreign) were so unreliable Alexander only ever used them in a supporting role, ...

I'm not sure that this is necessarily fair... The (unreliable) elements you speak of are mostly confined to the hostage-like hoplites Alexander received from the various Hellenic poleis. There were thousands of mercenaries* from the various parts of Hellas, mainland and island alike, and they fought very well. A good example of this would be at Gaugamela, where mercenary infantry and cavalry alike held together the wings against the attempted double envelopment.

* I really don't like it when modern readers and writers alike attempt to differentiate between Alexander's various contingents on the basis of whether they were tribute soldiers, mercenaries, etc. To a degree, all of Alexander's army was a "mercenary" one.

[marcus]

To a degree, all of Alexander's army was a "mercenary" one.

Well, in a sense yes,to the extent that a mercenary is one who fights for pay; but a "national" army following its head of state, or being sent to war by its head of state, even though it is "paid" and might even receive booty, doesn't really classify as a mercenary army.

ATB

[Phoebus]

I hear you and agree with you, Marcus. Though Alexander's situation prior to his Persian adventure shows that recurring standardized wages were a reality of his national army, there is indeed the distinction you speak of.

[Paralus]

There is some evidence that the Agrianes numbered at least 1,000 by the middle of the campaign. Bosworth discusses it in his Conquest and Empire from memory.

They were, by far, the most important of the "light" troops in the army. Often described as being in the van of the Companion Cavalry, they seem to have performed not only the early skirmishing roles in pitched batle but also that of the hamippoi (the "tail pullers" for want of a more funtional descriptor). That is, they intermingled with the Companion Cavalry dispatching those of the enemy which hit the ground - having been unhorsed - as well as offering cover to Companions who similarly found the dust.

Interestingly this is a role proponents of the Hypaspists as "light armed" troops, sans sarisa and in hoplite panoply, assign to that corps in pitched battle. The Agrianes, I'd argue, were much the better suited and the literary evidence tends to support it (particaularly Arrian's description of the placement of these troops in the battle line).

For the life of me, I can't reconcile a bloke in hoplite panoply as "light armed".

[Phoebus]

Yeah, I have to agree with that last statement. The weight of either a linothorax or a bronze cuirass aside*, constant running would be a difficult proposition for a hypaspist equipped with a traditionally-sized Argive-style aspis.

Modern body armour, such as the Interceptor and Paraclete vests used by the US armed forces can weigh in excess of 20lbs with just the two main ballistic plates and the carrier they are suited in. I won't pretend that I could sprint in the same distances as I could without this armour on, but I didn't feel that the weight compromised my overall speed and mobility that much (my ability to bend, on the other hand...). I would imagine that carrying a 15-20lb object on one's left arm while running about would quickly get tiring, though.

[Paralus]

Agreement Phoebus? Bugger!

The Agrianes:

From there he marched to the territory of the Assacenians, who were reported to be prepared for resistance with 2,000 cavalry, over 30,000 infantry, and thirty elephants at their disposal. His force consisted of the Companians, the mounted javelin-men, the battalions of Coenus and Polysperchon, the thousand Agrianes, and the archers...(Arrian, 4.25.6)

My knowledge of modern armour, Phoebus, is miniscule. That a fellow in hoplite panoply was going to chase the cavalry into battle, frankly, astounds me. This being the heavy infantryman that Greek cavalry were accostmed to rounding up and routing after a break in the phalanx? Those same hoplites that would incontinently discard weapons and anything else that might weigh down their flight so as to be able to escape a defeat? The same ultra-mobile battlefield force that were consistently harrassed by insignificant peltasts and destroyed by same during the "Corinthian War"?

Yes, I can see Philip and Alexander concluding that this would be the proper armament for their corps d'lete. Those same hoplites that they'd crushed in Greece.

They utilised, I suspect, the arms pertinent to the job. They were the elite force and were used in many differring operations because of that fact. When in pitched battle they were stationed on the king's wing of the phalanx (so as to be in contact with him) and will have been armed as was the phalanx. The Argyraspids most certainly were familiar with the use of the sarisa.

A lot of the rationale behind this is the fact that the phalanx required a mobile force on its flank to protect it. Therefore, the rationale goes, the hypaspists were "hoplites" adjoining the phalanx to the Companion Cavalry. There is merit to this. That the Agrianes seem to have performed this function is largely ignored though. As is the fact that the senior phalanx commander - and after the murder of Parmenion, senior general - Craterus is regularly stranded on the left with the cavalry abutting his phalanx. There is occasional mention of Thracians but, signally, there is no force like the hypaspists (certainly no "hoplites") to guard that end of the phalanx.

Must not have needed it?

I have, though, been incorrect before and will be, I'm certain, again.

[Phoebus]

I suppose a lot of this has to do with the rate of advance. I don't believe that I possess the same level of physical fitness as an elite hypaspist, but my friends and I routinely run 5-6 miles with our ballistic armour (about 18lbs stripped down) at about a 8-9 minute/mile pace as part of our pre-deployment prep-work.

I don't anticipate a Hypaspist to have been able to sprint behind Companion cavalry, but then I also don't think it would have been unfeasible to keep up for certain periods of time as said cavalry trotted into position.

Beyond that, I think you nailed the difference between the hypaspist and the hoplite yourself. The former is looking at a set amount of semi-rapid/rapid movement as part of an organized movement/assault. The latter is looking to save his life following a catastrophic occurrence. I'd also point out that the former is moving in conjunction with other forces; the latter is fleeing from cavalry forces.

Did I just kind of disagree with my previous post? Kind of. My intent here was to give the flip-side of the argument I gave earlier. As with many items that deal with Alexander, I think there's little room for certainty either way.