Book Club: Conquest and Empire

[rocktupac]

Then the Getae come down to the Danube, but defeating them was apparently ‘gratuitous terrorism’. Hmm. I see what he means – crossing the Danube was probably a straw-stuffed tent too far – but if you send an army to Alexander, of course he’s going to fight it. Still, they weren’t to know that, so it was hard on them.

Also, if Alexander was to invade Asia he needed his rear secure. He certainly couldn't afford to not shock or terrorize the northern tribes; remember, it was a little over 20 years ago that the Illyrians crushed the Macedonians under Perdiccas (albeit that's not the same as the Getae, and certainly they were without the well-trained army, but possibly a threat nonetheless or at least it would have been somewhat fresh in their minds). Unfortunately the Getae had to serve as the example, as so many would do along Alexander's campaign.

Alexander’s ally, Langarus of the Agrianians, is an interesting character. You get the feeling that they had a lot in common, and there was some mutual admiration there, and it would be good to know more about when they met and what happened.

I have always been interested by this as well. I think the Agrianians are an interesting bunch and was amazed at how often they were used in Alexander's battles and skirmishes. In my opinion, as far as non-Macedonian troops, they rank right up there with the Thessalian cavalry in terms of esteem.

What I am left with more than anything is amazement at the speed. They didn’t even have maps, for goodness’ sake! Or roads. And that bit about cutting steps into the mountain is just the stuff of legends, the kind of thing that puts Alexander into a class of his own.

It wouldn't surprise me if the elder Macedonians in the army, who were probably sheep or goat herders before the rise of Philip, knew the landscape and possible roadways in Greece. They at least would have encountered some who did know their way around (like shepherds), as Marcus mentioned. And also, more importantly, they were a well-oiled military machine. Philip would lead the army on marches (without a swelled baggage train or a surplus of attendants) quite often, sometimes up to 35 miles at a stretch (Diodorus 16.3.1; Polyaenus 4.2.10; Frontinus 4.1.6), and Alexander probably continued this practice.

The bit about cutting steps into the face of Mt. Ossa is remarkable. Despite it only appearing in one source (Polyaenus 4.3.23), I have not found one Alexander historian to question its legitimacy. Polyaenus (writing in the 2nd century A.D.) adds that the steps in his time were still known as "Alexander's ladder". Thus another example of the lasting appeal and legacy of Alexander! I love it!

[marcus]

I have always been interested by this as well. I think the Agrianians are an interesting bunch and was amazed at how often they were used in Alexander's battles and skirmishes. In my opinion, as far as non-Macedonian troops, they rank right up there with the Thessalian cavalry in terms of esteem.

I agree that the Agrianians must have been a terrific lot of fighters. What I find interesting, however, is that, if I recall correctly, the Agrianians are only actually mentioned by name on about three occasions - even though, as you say, we think of them as being used so often in the campaign. They must have been, highly valued as they clearly were, yet not actually mentioned often.

The bit about cutting steps into the face of Mt. Ossa is remarkable. Despite it only appearing in one source (Polyaenus 4.3.23), I have not found one Alexander historian to question its legitimacy.

I had forgotten the sparseness of the testimony for that feat - and, as you say, it has passed into the "canon" without so much as a murmur. I suppose it is exactly the sort of thing that Alexander would have done, and therefore no-one questioned it!

ATB

[rocktupac]

What I find interesting, however, is that, if I recall correctly, the Agrianians are only actually mentioned by name on about three occasions - even though, as you say, we think of them as being used so often in the campaign. They must have been, highly valued as they clearly were, yet not actually mentioned often.

I'm guessing you're thinking about a different body of troops, or something entirely different. In Curtius alone I found many examples (10 total) of the Agrianians mentioned by name:
(Curtius 3.9.10, 4.13.31, 4.15.21, 4.15.22, 5.3.3, 5.3.6, 8.11.9, 8.14.24, 9.8.18, 9.8.19)

And just paging through Arrian's first book I found quite a few as well (I think around 8 ).

[marcus]

What I find interesting, however, is that, if I recall correctly, the Agrianians are only actually mentioned by name on about three occasions - even though, as you say, we think of them as being used so often in the campaign. They must have been, highly valued as they clearly were, yet not actually mentioned often.

I'm guessing you're thinking about a different body of troops, or something entirely different. In Curtius alone I found many examples (10 total) of the Agrianians mentioned by name:
(Curtius 3.9.10, 4.13.31, 4.15.21, 4.15.22, 5.3.3, 5.3.6, 8.11.9, 8.14.24, 9.8.18, 9.8.19)

And just paging through Arrian's first book I found quite a few as well (I think around 8 ).

Hmm, maybe I am mistaken. But I shall have to retrace my steps (as it were) to work out where/why/how I came to think it was the Agrianians. I shall do so when time permits.

ATB

[Paralus]

Arrian has some fifty attestations for the Agrianians - not surprising when they took part in just about every military activity on the anabasis! (No, I did not count them: the good prof. has on page 263).

These were extremely important troops. In set pieces they are always with or near the right wing cavalry. At Gaugamela they are actuall posted in front of the hetairoi. This would suggest - clearly in my view - that part of their role was that of hamippoi. This, again, is a tactic well employed by the master Epaminondas. As such it is likely that the "unit" of infantry that crossed with the advance guard at Granicus was a unit of the Agrianians or possibly the other "javelin men" found under Balacrus. Suggestions have been made that this unit was the hypaspists or a unit of them. Alexander would hardly, in my view, remove a unit of his best infantry - guard infantry - and send them with what amounted to a diversionary force. They were reserved for the real assualt with the king.

[marcus]

Arrian has some fifty attestations for the Agrianians - not surprising when they took part in just about every military activity on the anabasis! (No, I did not count them: the good prof. has on page 263).

Well, that just goes to show that one must be careful about what one writes, especially without checking facts. Strange - because I am sure that I remember being surprised, at one time in the past, how relatively few mentions the Agrianians actually get ... and yet it is clear from those of you who have bothered to check! that they do get lots. I wonder where it all came from!

ATB

[marcus]

What I find interesting, however, is that, if I recall correctly, the Agrianians are only actually mentioned by name on about three occasions - even though, as you say, we think of them as being used so often in the campaign. They must have been, highly valued as they clearly were, yet not actually mentioned often.

I'm guessing you're thinking about a different body of troops, or something entirely different. In Curtius alone I found many examples (10 total) of the Agrianians mentioned by name:
(Curtius 3.9.10, 4.13.31, 4.15.21, 4.15.22, 5.3.3, 5.3.6, 8.11.9, 8.14.24, 9.8.18, 9.8.19)

And just paging through Arrian's first book I found quite a few as well (I think around 8 ).

Although I accept that I was wrong, I will just point out that:

- 3.9.10 is the only mention Curtius makes of them at Issus (and only describes their dispositions - no mention of their part in the action).
- 4.15.21 and 22 are describing the same action with the battle (and 4.13.31 merely describes their position in the dispositions).
- 5.3.3 and 5.3.6 are both describing an order of march and cannot be taken separately.
- 8.11.9 and 8.14.24 are two separate "uses" of the Agrianians.
- 9.8.18-19 are the same "action".

So, while I haven't looked at Arrian to check, and if there are indeed over 50 mentions then that is different, I would say that the Agrianians are mentioned only 6 times in Curtius. There is no mention of what they actually did at Issus, as they are only mentioned in the dispositions.

I'm not disputing what I said earlier, that I was mistaken over the number of mentions; however, I do actually stick to my earlier point, that we know the Agrianians were important troops and yet they are actually mentioned relatively infrequently.

ATB

[rocktupac]

Way to stick to your guns, Marcus!

Admittedly, it wasn't my intent to count how they were used in battle, only the total number of times their name came up. But I like your enthusiasm!

[marcus]

Way to stick to your guns, Marcus!

I'm always happy to admit it when I'm wrong; but I do like to stick to my firmly held convictions when I can. If I can compromise, then I'm even happier!

ATB

[Fiona]

So do you think there was an actual place called (presumably) Agriania, with any kind of clearly-defined border, and if so, where was it? Or was there just a group of people identified as Agrianians, and if so, do they belong to any broader grouping? Illyria seems to be marked on maps as if it was a definite place, and its inhabitants referred to (naturally) as Illyrians, but they seem to be subdivided more specifically when appropriate. Boworth refers to the Dardani and the Taulantii as if they are Illyrian people, but then he says the Taulantii lived in the hinterland of Epidamnus, as if Epidamnus was a different place to Illyria. Then, just to make matters worse, he then mentions another people, the Autariatae. And Arrian mentions Paeones, too.
Yet, the Illyrians are often referred to as if they were a unified people, with a single king, and didn't Philip marry a daughter of one (Audata?). I'm confused.
It would be good to know more about these peoples. As Marcus, pointed out, they may have been barbarians (to the Greeks) but they were not savages, and they were situated between the Greeks and the Celts by the sound of it. How very interesting it would be to know more about their lifestyle, customs, religions, and society. How much did they have in common with each other, with the Celts and with the Greeks, I wonder.
Fiona

[Paralus]

Curtius is not always at his best with descriptions of battle formations. His description of Gaugamela gives some serious pause: he has the “argyraspids” (hypaspists) posted in reserve behind the phalanx. Coenus' Asthetairoi too are "in reserve" and Craterus is over on the left, as one would expect, and in command of the Peloponnesian cavalry, as one would not.

Arrian is rather better. At the Granicus the Agrianes are clearly posted on the right (at least half of them if not all):

1.14.:1 And at the head of the right wing he placed the following officers: Philotas, son of Parmenio, with the cavalry Companions, the archers, and the Agrianian javelin-men; and Amyntas, son of Arrhabaeus, with the cavalry carrying the long pike, the Paeonians, and the squadron of Socrates, was posted near Philotas.

Significantly it is Socrates and Amyntas who lead the diversionary attack across the river. The troops posted with them are the Agrianes. They would, per force, be performing the role of hamippoi and so, logically, are the “unit” of infantry that crosses with the cavalry.

At Issos we find them in a similar role:

2.9.2: In front of the cavalry on the right, he posted the lancers under the command of Protomachus, and the Paeonians under that of Aristo; and of the infantry, the archers under the direction of Antiochus, and the Agrianians under that of Attalus.

Almost a re-run of Granicus if one neglects the section of them Alexander had chase off those Persians in the hills to the rear right. In any case, Alexander then orders them back and leaves 300 horsemen to keep watch. The Agrianes will have followed the cavalry across the river when the initial charge took place.

Gaugamela is even plainer:

3.12ff: Next to the royal squadron on the right wing, half of the Agrianians, under the command of Attalus, in conjunction with the Macedonian archers under Briso’s command, were posted angular-wise […] and in front of the royal squadron of cavalry and the other Companions had been posted half of the Agrianians and archers, and the javelin-men of Balacrus…

Again half in front of the Companion cavalry and another half with the cavalry of the angled wing. When Alexander “makes a wedge” of the cavalry and “the part of the phalanx which was posted” about him this will mean the hypaspists, Coenus’ brigade (as we find out later - even though Curtius has them "in reserve") and the Agrianes. The sources don’t dwell upon what the Agrianes did for the most part because it is the Homeric Alexander that they focus on.

The Agrianes were, of course, “selected from the phalanx of infantry” for the attack force at the Hydaspes. They also appear on the third page of the Penguin edition of Arrian when Alexander leads the royal hypaspists, the hypaspists and the Agrianes against the Thracians.

Professor Bosworth might well be correct with “over fifty attestations” in Arrian: I’m not counting any further.

[Fiona]

2:3 First Victory

It’s a long time since I had to look up a word in the dictionary when reading, but in this chapter I had to look up two! Apotropaic and encomiastic – if nothing else, I’ve learned two new words.

I thought this was an interesting and exciting chapter, beautifully written in the taut, succinct syle we are coming to expect. I am still being ruffled by some phrases, that seem unnecessarily critical or perjorative – ‘impressive acts of propaganda’ was one, and ‘fatuous apophthegm’ was another. Yet in other places, Professor Bosworth gives us things like ‘this he did in typically brilliant fashion’. I am beginning to see a pattern here – he has done it like this before, and I suspect it’s his way of being even-handed. Lash out with a criticism here, and balance it with high praise there. It’s probably a good idea, because Alexander being what he was, two extremes can both be true at the same time, and to seek always for some middle-ground would make for boring reading and not do justice to Alexander.

I thought the focus on, and attention to the detail of, the political and military was totally gripping, and I’ll happily talk about the battle to any other reader who wants to, but the part that gripped me most was actually the part decribing the motives of Alexander’s actions prior to embarkation and during the crossing of the Hellespont. Although he calls the sacrifice at Elaeus ‘propaganda’, Bosworth lays much more emphasis than I would have expected on the ritual importance of the sacrifices, both there and later, and also on their sentimental significance.
I thought this was good, and showed clearly that Alexander was undertaking this expedition with his head full of history, and religious carefulness.

And this was an interesting and unusual point:
“For Alexander the Trojans were not barbarians but Hellenes on Asian soil”
I had not thought of it like that before, nor that Alexander would reckon with his own Trojan blood through Andromache. Very interesting and thought-provoking – if he was indeed “eager to reconcile the two sides of his lineage” then it was a good pointer to things to come.

Even though Bosworth does not mention the part about the tomb of Achilles – and that’s fair enough, as he has said he is not writing a biography – it is remarkable that he still concludes, of the various ceremonies attached to the invasion journey:
“It was a most evocative variation on the theme of Panhellenism, and Alexander proceeded to battle with the ghosts of the past enlisted in his service.”
Terrific phrase, that one!

One final thought – when he is discussing the impossibility of knowing for certain exactly how the troops were deployed at Granicus, he says:
“One can only hazard the reconstruction that does least violence to the facts of topography”.
It strikes me that if eminent professors can do this with regard to topography, then less eminent persons can follow their example. I can foresee occasions when the substitution of the word ‘character’ for the word ‘topography’ could be a very useful argument!
Fiona

[marcus]

So do you think there was an actual place called (presumably) Agriania, with any kind of clearly-defined border, and if so, where was it? Or was there just a group of people identified as Agrianians, and if so, do they belong to any broader grouping?

The Agrianians/Agrianes were a tribe, so I doubt there was a place actually called "Agriania". On the other hand, they will have had a relatively clearly defined "homeland" - I say relatively, because presumably they had been fighting over land with their neighbours for generations - hence why they ended up fighting with the Macedonians in the first place.

ATB

[mrobinsonnz]

Hi Fiona, I have only just registered on this site, consequently I am behind in reading Bosworth (haven’t read it for years, but I have always considered it one of the better texts on Alexander). I hope you don’t mind me commenting on a point you raised a while ago.

On ‘The Legacy of Philip’

His section on the legacy of Philip was a good broad sweep of useful background, and leaves me in no doubt as to the extent of Philip’s awesome achievements, except for one little niggle – how do we know that Macedon was in such a poor state when Philip inherited it? Bosworth makes it sound as if the place was without form and void, with darkness moving upon the face of the deep, before Philip licked it into shape. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence cited for the state of Macedon pre-Philip, which makes me wonder if Archelaus, for one, isn’t being hard done-by, and also if Philip’s achievements aren’t being played up as a preliminary to playing Alexander’s down.

One source providing evidence for the state of Macedonia upon the accession of Philip is provided in Diodorus XVI.2.4-6:

"Philip…succeeded to the kingdom, now in a bad way. [5] For the Macedonians had lost more than four thousand men in the battle, and the remainder, panic-stricken, had become exceedingly afraid of the Illyrian armies and had lost heart for continuing the war. [6] About the same time the Paeonians, who lived near Macedonia, began to pillage their territory, showing contempt for the Macedonians, and the Illyrians began to assemble large armies and prepare for an invasion of Macedonia, while a certain Pausanias, who was related to the royal line of Macedon, was planning with the aid of the Thracian king to join the contest for the throne of Macedon. Similarly, the Athenians too, being hostile to Philip, were endeavouring to restore Argaeus to the throne and had dispatched Mantias as general with three thousand hoplites and a considerable naval force.
3. The Macedonians because of the disaster sustained in the battle and the magnitude of the dangers pressing upon them were in the greatest perplexity."

Based on this evidence alone it seems that Bosworth is probably not overstating the case. The new Macedonian king was facing threats from no less than two neighbouring peoples (the Illyrians and Paeonians) and from rival claimants to the throne. The situation when Philip came to power was fairly typical of the issues facing Macedonian kings during the early decades of the fourth century BC. A good article on the topic is ‘Macedonia and the North, 400-336’ by Julia Heskel which is contained in the text The Greek World in the Fourth Century: From the fall of the Athenian Empire to the Successors of Alexander, Edited by Lawrence A. Tritle, Routledge 1997. Heskel’s chapter makes extensive references to the ancient evidence.

Cheers, Murray

[Fiona]

The Agrianians/Agrianes were a tribe, so I doubt there was a place actually called "Agriania". On the other hand, they will have had a relatively clearly defined "homeland" - I say relatively, because presumably they had been fighting over land with their neighbours for generations - hence why they ended up fighting with the Macedonians in the first place.

ATB

Thanks, Marcus, that's very helpful. And no doubt all that fighting brought them the impressive skills that made them such valuable troops once they were fighting 'with' the Macedonians, in the sense of alongside them!
Fiona