Establishing casualty numbers

Please post here if you have any constructive comments, support requests or queries about pothos.org itself.

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Into Curtius

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:[ When you reach the part about India (in any of the histories) please let me know if there's any reference to Persian troops being with Alexander. Pretty please . .
I too would be interested. For my own part, I can't remember where the reference pops up. The figure certainly does. As is well known, I don't believe it.

In the entire Idian campaign we have only the Indian troops (5,000) and mounted horsemen brought from Bactria, Sogdiana (and points thereabouts) and Indian cavalry attested in action that I can quickly recall.

Alexander made no use of the elephants he was gifted too. Perhaps the 60 - 80,000 "Persian Troops" came along for the experience? Perhaps too, it was these effete Persians who perished in Gedrosia?

Problem is, we are given this figure but such numbers are not ever deployed.

If not, then back at Opis, the Macedonians must really have been concerned. With the 30,000 "successors" and the 60-80,000 from the Indian campaign, they will have been reduced to a non entity within their own army.

Then again, they were upset now, weren't they?
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Persians with Alexander in India

Post by marcus »

karen wrote:I'm way over 100,000 now, as I'm past Issos -- except that I find Curtius's figures hard to believe in their one-sidedness, as Paralus was bemoaning. Hmmmm...
I'm not even thinking of adding them up, yet.

Anyway, I haven't managed anything this evening. I'm about 2/3 of the way through Diodorus Book 17, but I suspect there aren't going to be any figures from now on - because of the large lacuna there's nothing for the Hydaspes, and even at the Mallian town there aren't any numbers. Gedrosia's the last real chance that Diodorus will commit to any actual numbers.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
derek
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:47 pm
Location: Rhode Island USA

Persians in India

Post by derek »

Amyntoros,

I'm reading the Indian campaign in Arrian, Curtius and Diodorus, with the odd foray into Plutarch, Justin and Strabo, so have pretty well covered it. I've reached Alexander reaching the sea, so he's about to turn and leave India, and there's been no mention of Persian troops whatsoever. Plenty of references to tribal cavalry from Bactria and points north, but that's all.

The thing is, you get the feeling there must be plenty more that aren't being mentioned. When Alexander builds the fleet at the Hydaspes, he recruits enough Phoenicians, Egyptians and Ionians to crew 2,000 ships. Where did they come from? There may have been Ionians among the Greek mercenaries, but there's been no mention of any Phoenicians since Tyre, and the only Egyptians to have been mentioned are priests. I think Alexander must have had plenty of Persian troops in India, but they were used in a support/garrison role, and the eyewitness sources were Greeks who weren't going to waste ink on troops who didn't do much and they felt were inferior anyway.

Derek
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Status update

Post by karen »

Not much in the past few days... I've had a nasty flu with up and down fever. And really, one should not think about Alexander when one has an up and down fever. Anyway -- I'm at the death of Philotas.

Getting there!

Warmly (haha)
Karen
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Persians in India

Post by amyntoros »

Hi Derek and all,
derek wrote: I'm reading the Indian campaign in Arrian, Curtius and Diodorus, with the odd foray into Plutarch, Justin and Strabo, so have pretty well covered it. I've reached Alexander reaching the sea, so he's about to turn and leave India, and there's been no mention of Persian troops whatsoever. Plenty of references to tribal cavalry from Bactria and points north, but that's all.
With my curiosity aroused as to the composition of Alexander’s army in India, I’ve been playing with numbers using Hammond’s The Genius of Alexander the Great; his article, Casualties and Reinforcements of Citizen Soldiers in Greece and Macedonia: Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 109 (1989), 56-68; and Appendix 5, Tables 4 thru 6, Approximate Troop Numbers in Alexander’s Army (Hellespont to India) from Donald W. Engels’ Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army. The latter, by the way, includes references, along with numbers and adjustments for losses and garrisons as well as reinforcements!

I won’t list the individual numbers here (unless someone wants me to) but Hammond gives an approximate total of 29,400 citizen Macedonians deployed in Asia between 334 and 323, and a figure of 26,800 alive in 324-323, making for approximately 3,000 Macedonian dead over the ten year period. (Bosworth and Brunt have argued that Macedonian losses must have been far greater than recorded, therefore there had to have been enormous numbers of reinforcements from Macedonia that were omitted from Arrian and the other histories. I find both their arguments unconvincing.)

Now, Engels’ chart agrees with the figure of just over 120,000 troops in Alexander’s army before Gedrosia. So who are they and where did they come from? There is Diodorus’ controversial account of 30,000 Persians brought to the Hydaspes, of course, but what of the rest? Using the breakdowns given in Hammond’s bio (and an occasional foray into the sources), I made a rough list as follows: (Macedonian reinforcements are already included in Hammond’s calculations.)

Miletus – 300 Greek Mercenaries
Gordium – 3,000 Macedonian Foot, 300 Macedonian Cavalry, 200 Thessalian Cavalry, 150 Eleians
Sidon – 4,000 Greek Mercenaries
Tyre – 3,000 Greek Mercenaries
Egypt – 400 Greek Mercenaries, 500 Thracian Cavalry
Babylon – 500 Macedonian Cavalry, 6,000 Macedonian Foot, 600 Thracian Cavalry, 3,500 Thracian Foot, 380 Greek Mercenary Cavalry, 4,000 Greek Mercenary Foot.
Autumn, 330 BC – 300 Lydian Cavalry, 2,600 Lydian Foot
Winter 329/28 BC – 1,000 Cavalry and 8,000 Foot from Lycia and Syria
Artacoana – 130 Thessalian Cavalry, 500 Greek Mercenary Cavalry, 300 Lydian Cavalry, 3,000 Foot (?) from Illyricum, 2,600 Foot from Lydia
Bactria – 1,600 Greek Mercenary Cavalry, 11,400 Greek Mercenary Foot, 500 Lycian Cavalry, 4,000 Lycian Foot, 500 Syrian Cavalry, 4,000 Syrian Foot
Sogdia – Large forces of Sogdian, Bactrian, Scythian, Dahaean Cavalry
Nysa/Taxila – 400 Indian Cavalry from Nysa, 700 Indian Cavalry from Taxila, 5,000 Foot from Taxila
Hydaspes – 5,000 Thracian Cavalry, 7,000 Greek Foot from Harpalus, 30,000 Persians.
Mallians – 2,500 Cavalry
Oxydracae – 500 Cavalry
Sudracae – 1,300 Cavalry

I may be missing some figures, and the numbers are not adjusted for casualties and garrisons. I just wanted to get a general idea of the composition of Alexander’s forces by the time he began his return to the west. Which brings about this comment:

Hammond states that his calculations (of Macedonian casualties) “are nothing more than probable in themselves”, but I find them quite credible. If his numbers are correct, or even close, then the reportedly huge numbers of people that died during the march through Gedrosia were NOT Macedonians. It could have been any combination of the peoples listed above, but not Alexander’s own men. And for some reason I find this thought vaguely disturbing . . .

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Persians in India

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:I won’t list the individual numbers here (unless someone wants me to) but Hammond gives an approximate total of 29,400 citizen Macedonians deployed in Asia between 334 and 323, and a figure of 26,800 alive in 324-323, making for approximately 3,000 Macedonian dead over the ten year period. (Bosworth and Brunt have argued that Macedonian losses must have been far greater than recorded, therefore there had to have been enormous numbers of reinforcements from Macedonia that were omitted from Arrian and the other histories. I find both their arguments unconvincing.)
At midnight, and a 7:30 appointment fifty minutes away tomor...day, this will be quick.

I don't find an approximate number of 29,400 too far from the truth. Bosworth calculates some 30,000 for the same period. Sticking with Hammond's 26,800 survivors we must assume - given he's correct - that as none had returned home by the commencement of the Diadochoi dance after Alexander's death, these troops are all operating in Asia? I'd be interested in a work up of those figures.

From whence are we raising and dismissing Bosworth's "unconvincing" argument?

For the life of me, I cannot see 120,000 operating in India - "Persian" or otherwise. At the time of Hydaspes - where we can discern some 30 odd thousand described - Alexander must have had four or so army groups wandering north-western Pakistan.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
derek
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:47 pm
Location: Rhode Island USA

Re: Persians in India

Post by derek »

Errmmm, as I said, no mention of Persians in India, except the 30,000 in Diodorus. What comes of having the American Idol auditions on in the background when you're trying to concentrate!

Derek
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Persians in India

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:I don't find an approximate number of 29,400 too far from the truth. Bosworth calculates some 30,000 for the same period. Sticking with Hammond's 26,800 survivors we must assume - given he's correct - that as none had returned home by the commencement of the Diadochoi dance after Alexander's death, these troops are all operating in Asia? I'd be interested in a work up of those figures.
Using Hammond’s calculations, we begin with the more tentative numbers - an estimate of 3,000 Macedonian citizen troops in the vanguard – a figure that Bosworth also supports. Allow for 1,000 archers, grooms, batmen, transport men, etc. Add an approximation of 1,000 ‘sons of the Hypaspists’ (out of the more than 3,000 mentioned in 317 BC who fought alongside the Silvershields). Then include an estimate of 400 Royal Pages at 50 a year (331-323). We know of 2,200 Cavalry that crossed with Alexander (including 900 light-armed) and 12,000 Foot. Reinforcements of 3,000 Foot and 300 Cavalry arrived at Gordium; 6,000 Foot and 500 Cavalry at Babylon. That makes a total of 29,400.
Paralus wrote:From whence are we raising and dismissing Bosworth's "unconvincing" argument?
Ah, ah! Did I drop a BBB (Baby Bosworth Bomb) on the forum? :wink:

Answer: from Hammond; his article, Casualties and Reinforcements of Citizen Soldiers in Greece and Macedonia: Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 109 (1989), 56-68. Referring to Brunt in the 1983 Loeb edition of Arrian, and Bosworth in his Commentary i of 1980 and his articles in Ancient Macedonia iv (Thessaloniki 1986) and JHS cvi of 1986, Hammond, a polite man, says “it is necessary as well as a matter of courtesy to point out where they seem to me to have gone astray.”

I think I may quote Hammond directly as it is but a small portion of his article:
Bosworth adopts some of Brunt’s assumptions and improves on them. In the matter of Macedonian casualties he regards Arrian’s narrative as ‘the official court tradition’ (surely that was transmitted by Callisthenes) and not, as Arrian himself claimed, based on the histories of Ptolemy and Aristobulus. The figures of Macedonian casualties were therefore propagandist. The true casualties of the Macedonian citizen troops were according to Bosworth ‘appalling in 332 BC (the only engagements were the sieges of Tyre and Gaza). He likes Brunt’s views on disease, citing the speech of Coenus as ‘representing the conventional view in antiquity’ (JHS article n. 48 ), and adding ‘in the incomplete record provided by Arrian there is an impressive list of senior officers who died from disease’ (he cites five names over a period of ten years, but even in peacetime one would not be startled by one senior officer dying every second year). He adds fatigue: ‘the potentialities for wastage’ were, he maintains, ‘truly immense’, and ‘the facts of progressive wastage entail that the original corps of phalanx troops was massively reinforced’ already before the Battle of Issus in 333 BC (JHS p. 6), that is within a period of eighteen months after landing, when the Greek cities, the Lydians and Carians were able to provide plenty of supplies. Although Bosworth rejects Brunt’s assumptions that Macedonian troops were sent to Asia as reinforcements after 330 BC but that this was not mentioned by our sources, Bosworth thinks that prior to that date ‘enormous reinforcements were drawn from Macedonia itself.’ These sweeping views, together with his rejection of Brunt’s last assumption <’…that Arrian has omitted somewhere between 326 and 323 the arrival of a very considerable force of Macedonian recruits.’>, leads to the same impasse, that with the departure of the 10,000 veterans in 324 Alexander must have been left with only a skeleton force of Macedonian citizen troops.
Paralus wrote:For the life of me, I cannot see 120,000 operating in India - "Persian" or otherwise. At the time of Hydaspes - where we can discern some 30 odd thousand described - Alexander must have had four or so army groups wandering north-western Pakistan.
derek wrote:Errmmm, as I said, no mention of Persians in India, except the 30,000 in Diodorus.
I really don’t know what to think after doing this small research. I had previously decided that even if we accepted a great reduction in the number of Persians at Gaugamela, some of the surviving Persian rank and file would surely have been inducted into Alexander’s forces. As it stands, with the exception of Diodorus’ 30,000, we hear nothing of them until Alexander returns to the west where they suddenly become the pride and joy of his newly reconstructed army. It’s beginning to make little sense unless I do accept the 30,000 in India, presumably arriving after being trained in the Macedonian manner. As for all the other reinforcements, I have no idea where they operated. I imagine that a good number of non-Macedonians were killed and their deaths, being of lesser importance, were not recorded, especially in Bactria and similar regions. Or perhaps their deaths were recorded, but Ptolemy and Aristobulus had little interest in these numbers. And maybe some of the balance of non-Macedonians was stationed with the ship-builders? (How many men would it have taken to gather supplies, build (and protect) a fleet of that size anyway?) All I know is that the numbers do balance out remarkably well. And if there wasn’t a large army of non-Macedonians in India, then there could not have been a huge number of deaths in the Gedrosian desert!

Best regards,

________________________
Amyntoros

PS to Karen. Hope you are feeling better! :)
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:Ah, ah! Did I drop a BBB (Baby Bosworth Bomb) on the forum?
As always, I’ll start in the middle!

You know quite well what you are dropping my dear. Fear not, I’m certain the eminent Prof Bosworth is capable of defending his own argument: he has little use of Paralus there.
amyntoros wrote:Using Hammond’s calculations, we begin with the more tentative numbers - an estimate of 3,000 Macedonian citizen troops in the vanguard – a figure that Bosworth also supports. Allow for 1,000 archers, grooms, batmen, transport men, etc…


Yes, yes. As I wrote:
Paralus wrote:I don't find an approximate number of 29,400 too far from the truth. Bosworth calculates some 30,000 for the same period.
So the figures of Macedonian levies taken east over the anabasis are not what is at issue. It is the second part of that paragraph where I take issue:
Paralus wrote: Sticking with Hammond's 26,800 survivors we must assume - given he's correct - that as none had returned home by the commencement of the Diadochoi dance after Alexander's death, these troops are all operating in Asia?
The question being, if – as the ever polite Hammond (slightly less so in his Philip of Macedon) states – there were 26,800 “survivors” of the anabasis after Alexander’s death, where were those troops operating? Craterus was yet to return to Greece and so the entire Macedonian levy was still in Asia. With whom were they stationed?

The argument is a full one and involved. As well, I am at the office and have no recourse to literature, but, from memory I can recall some 4-5,000 with Perdiccas’ Royal army ( which returned from Egypt); a similar number between Eumenes and Alcetas and 11,000 with Craterus.

Curtius (not always totally reliable – if any really are) has Alexander declare that he has sent home (10,000 infantry and 1,000 horse) more Macedonians than he is keeping with him – obviously expecting the rather less than ambulatory Antipater with the army he didn’t have for Lamia to re-stock his Macedonian larder. Such would tally with some 8-9,000 left in Asia outside of Craterus’ vacillating veterans in Cilicia.
amyntoros wrote:Add an approximation of 1,000 ‘sons of the Hypaspists’ (out of the more than 3,000 mentioned in 317 BC who fought alongside the Silvershields)…
Now we come to thorny issues. I have stated elsewhere – in my usual less than dogmatic fashion – that I believe the Diadochoi possessed no “hypaspists”. Funnily enough, I find myself in agreement with myself. If there was one thing Eumenes lacked in the Iranian campaigns of 318-6 it was significant numbers of Macedonians, infantry or others. Indeed, Eumenes arrived on the Iranian plateau at both Paraitacene and Gabiene with a “satrapal army” drawn from the eastern provinces. As heavy as it was on cavalry as it was unlikely to contain significant numbers of Macedonians out side of Alexander’s hypaspists, the Argyraspids.

There is confusion over the terminology used in describing those we refer to as “hypaspists”. On many occasions it refers to “shield bearers”. On some – such as Alexander’s hypaspists – it indicates exactly such. The argument is that Eumenes' shield bearers were the better of the Asians “trained and armed in the Macedonian manner”. In effect, these were Eumenes’ – the Royal General's – “foot guard”. In the same manner as Eumenes had his “agema” drawn from the satrapal cavalry he had raised.

I still find that some 18-20,000 (at the very most) will have been attested in Asia before Craterus decamped to Crannon. The above may not make an enormous of logical sense – I’m lunching whilst typing – as I’m without the text. I’ll get ‘round to it though.

On the Gedrosia losses, I’d tend to agree with Green that they were of the city that followed the army. The Macedonian numbers are attested at Babylon/Opis. Possibly if the figures argued above are correct, some 6,000 Macedonian bodies remained in the desert? I doubt those that perished were disproportionately “Persian”. That could only have resulted from a targeted policy which will have led to a revolt one thinks.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Paralus wrote:The question being, if – as the ever polite Hammond (slightly less so in his Philip of Macedon) states – there were 26,800 “survivors” of the anabasis after Alexander’s death, where were those troops operating? Craterus was yet to return to Greece and so the entire Macedonian levy was still in Asia. With whom were they stationed?

The argument is a full one and involved. As well, I am at the office and have no recourse to literature, but, from memory I can recall some 4-5,000 with Perdiccas’ Royal army ( which returned from Egypt); a similar number between Eumenes and Alcetas and 11,000 with Craterus.
A full and involved argument, indeed. :) Perhaps one I shouldn’t have started because I have insufficient knowledge to finish it. Hammond ends with the number of Macedonian troops at the time of Alexander’s death: 400 sent home in 329 BC; 10,000 departing with Craterus; 15,000 retained in Babylonia – 3,000 Hypaspists, 8,000 having come from Macedonia as Phalangites; some 2,000 Phalangites added in Asia. I don’t know from where he devised the breakdown, but the figure of 15,000 retained is from Curtius 10.2.8.

To find out where these 15,000 might have been stationed (in Asia) after Alexander’s death, I started with a quick look at Diodorus 1, but became exasperated rather quickly. For instance, 19.14.4 says:
As for Leonnatus, when Hecataeus came to him as envoy and begged him to aid Antipater and the Macedonians with all speed, he promised to give military aid. 5 He crossed over, therefore, into Europe and went on to Macedonia, where he enlisted many additional Macedonian soldiers. When he had gathered together in all more than twenty thousand infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry, he led them through Thessaly against the enemy.
It tells us nothing about the composition of Leonnatus' forces, however, he enlisted “many additional Macedonian soldiers” so it must be safe to assume that he also had some Macedonians from Asia under his command. But how many? And do these numbers also include Asian troops? You would know much better than I if native soldiers were taken into Macedonia to fight in the battles there. I’m afraid that is a line of inquiry that I’m unqualified to pursue further. :wink:
Paralus wrote:Now we come to thorny issues. I have stated elsewhere – in my usual less than dogmatic fashion – that I believe the Diadochoi possessed no “hypaspists”. Funnily enough, I find myself in agreement with myself. If there was one thing Eumenes lacked in the Iranian campaigns of 318-6 it was significant numbers of Macedonians, infantry or others. Indeed, Eumenes arrived on the Iranian plateau at both Paraitacene and Gabiene with a “satrapal army” drawn from the eastern provinces. As heavy as it was on cavalry as it was unlikely to contain significant numbers of Macedonians out side of Alexander’s hypaspists, the Argyraspids.
Hammond calls these hypaspists “the sons of the hypaspists, raised in the camp and trained to be soldiers. He refers to Diodorus 10.28.1 :
(317 B.C.) After them he drew up the Macedonian Silver Shields, more than three thousand in number, undefeated troops, the fame of whose exploits caused much fear among the enemy, and finally the men from the hypaspists, more than three thousand, with Antigenes and Teutamus leading both them and the Silver Shields.
I have NO idea why Hammond claims these men are “sons of the hypaspists.” For that matter, I wouldn’t know a hypaspist from my elbow. When I see the words like hypaspist and Argyraspid my brain goes into Bill and Ben mode. Shlobollob Weeeeed!
Paralus wrote:On the Gedrosia losses, I’d tend to agree with Green that they were of the city that followed the army. The Macedonian numbers are attested at Babylon/Opis. Possibly if the figures argued above are correct, some 6,000 Macedonian bodies remained in the desert? I doubt those that perished were disproportionately “Persian”. That could only have resulted from a targeted policy which will have led to a revolt one thinks.
If your argument is correct then they could be Macedonian bodies. If Hammond is correct then they couldn’t be. I don’t think, however, that they would necessarily have been disproportionately Persian. Reinforcements came from many different places and the deceased could have been from any combination of races, including Greek mercenaries. It is a worst case scenario, I think, if they were all camp followers. Should most of the soldiers have survived and the majority of deaths occurred amongst the women, children, and service providers … well, the crossing of the desert wouldn’t have been much of an “achievement” on Alexander’s part, IMO. But those are personal feelings.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

amyntoros wrote:A full and involved argument, indeed. Perhaps one I shouldn’t have started because I have insufficient knowledge to finish it. Hammond ends with the number of Macedonian troops at the time of Alexander’s death: 400 sent home in 329 BC; 10,000 departing with Craterus; 15,000 retained in Babylonia – 3,000 Hypaspists, 8,000 having come from Macedonia as Phalangites; some 2,000 Phalangites added in Asia. I don’t know from where he devised the breakdown, but the figure of 15,000 retained is from Curtius 10.2.8.
You don’t have this piece by Hammond online do you? Would make much better reading than the industrial agreement I’m wading through!

It would seem that Hammond is predicating his figures on Curtius’ 15,000 retained in Asia. This is the same Curtius who informs that, having pensioned off some 11,000 with Craterus, Alexander was sending home more than he was keeping. Plainly the two cannot be reconciled and Curtius may be mixing his sources here.

Difficulties abound due to the salting of the pezhetairoi with Iranian levies and it may be that the above reckons the phalanx strength (at Opis/Babylon) with those levies taken into account. Outside of that, Bosworth argues (The Legacy of Alexander) for something in the order of 9,000 Macedonians after Alexander’s death in 323 – not including those seemingly recumbent in Cilicia. Remember, Antipater was to bringing to Babylon the army from Macedonia at this time. That he didn’t really have such to “bring up” seems not to have occurred to Alexander.
amyntoros wrote:It tells us nothing about the composition of Leonnatus' forces, however, he enlisted “many additional Macedonian soldiers” so it must be safe to assume that he also had some Macedonians from Asia under his command. But how many? And do these numbers also include Asian troops?
Again I’d need to check when I get back to the library of Paralus.

Antipater and the rump of the Macedonian home levies were tied up in Lamia. It is doubtful that – coming to the aid of a besieged Antipater – he will have conducted a conscription drive. Whatever will have been collected will have been ready reserves. Certainly he will have had little in his Asian garrison. The fate which befell Leonnatus argues heavily against his having any significant number of Macedonian phalanx troops with him. It is intriguing that he fell in a cavalry engagement. The plain down in front of Lamia (today anyway) will have suited a Macedonian phalanx down to the but of their sarissas. That Leonnatus failed here would suggest his troops were – in large part – mercenary and Asian.

Craterus’ veterans and Antipater’s levy (together some 18-20,000??), in crushing the Greek hoplites at Crannon, showed what could be achieved if one still had access to a Macedonian phalanx.

As to Diodorus and the hypaspists, his “more than three thousand” is much like his penchant for 30,000 and 300,000. One wonders whether he has conflated the numbers in his source Hieronymus. The Argyraspids were attested at three thousand – Alexander’s hypaspists. Again, the hypaspists mentioned are likely to be the better brigades of the Asian trained phalanx units. Eumenes was desperately short of Macedonian phalangites.

Then again, it’s likely that I could be misremembering the argument. Must have a read up when I return home.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Hereditary Hypaspists??

Post by Paralus »

Thanks for the article Amyntoros. Reading it over lunch.

As always, Mr Hammond is polite in his deconstruction of others’ arguments. It is as well to bear in mind that Bosworth has re-thought his rationale on some of these matters which, at the time of Hammond’s article, was some twelve years in the future.

I’ll do more over the weekend – if family commitments allow – and restrict myself just to the Hypaspists for today. I find the following a very interesting little passage:
Finally, there were the ‘sons of the Hypaspists’ (Diod xix 28.1), raised in the camp and trained to be soldiers. They were mentioned first in 317, when they numbered more than 3,000 and fought alongside the Silver Shields, as the original hypaspists were then called. It is anyone’s guess how many of these were already in service in 323. Let’s say 1,000.
I wasn’t actually aware that the position of Hypaspist was hereditary as Hammond implies here. As well, were these “sons” to be old enough to number among the active service Macedonians in 323, they will need to have been conceived prior to the Chaeronea campaign. Is Hammond suggesting that Alexander took four to five year old children along with his father’s hypaspists so as to “raise them in camp”? In 317, those of military age will have been born around the time of the expedition’s departure. The Argyraspids and their women were productive individuals, given the infant mortalityof the day and the fact that the families tagged along "in camp", going on the numbers that made it to Hypaspist-hood.

Not being a reader of ancient Greek, it would be interesting to know why Hammond translated the passage from Diodorus as “sons” as opposed to “men” as do others. Why also, if these “hypaspists” have been “raised in camp”, do we not ever hear of them until 317 in Eumenes army? The “sons” of the Hypaspists are not attested anywhere else that I’m aware of – whether there were 1,000 of them or not in 323.

In this engagement, Diodorus, through Hieronymus, gives reasonable detail when it comes to Eumenes’ line of battle. That the figures don’t, in the end, add up is par for the course I suppose: Diodorus again compressing his source information or, as has been suggested, missing out the light infantry numbers. That aside, the absolute lack of Macedonian infantry outside of the Argyraspids and these “men of the Hypaspists” should serve to show that this was a satrapal army raised from the “upper satrapies” and made up accordingly. We have Asian infantry “trained and armed in the Macedonian fashion”, the Argyraspids and – out of nowhere – “Hypaspists”. No Macedonian Pezhetairoi, just their “betters”.

I think that the simplest explanation is – as per usual – the best. Eumenes was short of Macedonian manpower at Paraitacene. Indeed he is shown as utilising 5,000 “trained in the Macedonian fashion”. Again, I’d suggest these “hypaspists” too, are exactly that, just those that Eumenes chose as his Hypaspists. In the same manner that he (and his other satrapal commanders) had their “Agema” or “Companions”.

He was, after all, the “Royal General” charged with defending the Argaed House – no matter how tenuous that position was becoming by this stage. His trappings were the same as the king he apparently recalled –on the field at Gabiene – with the exhortation to ignore Antigonus’ cavalry laying hands on the baggage for all the baggage would belong to the victor.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

and Curtius may be mixing his sources here.
That is why he is considered unreliable. At least on matters like this. You cannot base an argument purely on Curtius' figures.

I will only comment on one thing that i saw in these posts.I have been told (by an archaiologist) that who am i to make comments on people's work who have been researching these things for their whole lives. Well, when i read something like that Arrian ommited things on purpose and propagandised (Bosworth), then i cannot but comment on that.

Arrian wasnt in Alexander's royal court but lived in the 1st century a.d. Some people seem to forget that. He didnt have a reason to make propaganda, at least as far as i know. And he didnt have only Callisthenes as a source, who surely he knew that he could have been guided by Alexander as to what he wrote about some things.

In the same manner i consider Curtius as unreliable, but that is an oppinion of many people, and is documented better by for example, Paralus' remark. But saying that Arrian ommited things, like if he was in a secret "I worshipp Alexander" cult, fabricating the history, is something that i wouldnt expect from a researcher. But Bosworth is another story.

Of course Arrian made mistakes too. And as much as he may have admired Alexander, he also critised him for some of his actions. Such as Thebes, Cleitus, Parmenion, and Gedrosia. He wouldnt ommit things.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Efstathios wrote: Arrian wasnt in Alexander's royal court but lived in the 1st century a.d. Some people seem to forget that. He didnt have a reason to make propaganda, at least as far as i know.
Oh Dear Stathi, you actually wrote that. Of course he did – he had every reason. Not only the longing for that better day when the King of Macedon was so pure a ruler that he made Roman Emperors look petty. Arrian is a most apologetic biographer of Alexander and that makes him as selective as the modern historian you so disparage.
Efstathios wrote: Well, when i read something like that Arrian ommited things on purpose and propagandised (Bosworth), then i cannot but comment on that.


Of course he did. As did all the "Alexander historians". I believe you need to adjust to the fact. Arrian presented his Alexander – four hundred years after the events. Think of it Stathi – he's describing thins as we would events of the seventeenth century. Of course he had pre-conceived ideas. And he kept to them.
Efstathios wrote:[ Of course Arrian made mistakes too. And as much as he may have admired Alexander, he also critised him for some of his actions. Such as Thebes, Cleitus, Parmenion, and Gedrosia. He wouldnt ommit things.
Oh garbage. He mostly excused Alexander. There was always a reason, an excuse, a temptress.

He most assuredly omitted things.
Last edited by Paralus on Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

A little more on Greek sources and their selective editing Stathi. This from the indispensable The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest, A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. (Michael Austin):
The (Arrian's) account of Alexander is based primarily, as Arrian indicates, on two writers, Ptolemy the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty and Aristobulous of Cassandrea, both of them contemporaries of Alexander and regarded by Arrian as trustworthy sources, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Arrian's account is the fullest and most detailed available for Alexander, though it tends toward blandness and apologia as did both Ptolemy and Aristobulus; it omits or distorts aspects of Alexander's career as comparison with the other sources shows.
(My italics)

The glossing over of the events at Persepolis – where a reading of Arrian will give little indication of the four month occupancy and looting of the city – comes to mind. Austin further notes that several central questions about Alexander remain the realm of speculation and controversy due, in large part, to Alexander's assiduous cultivation of his own legend.

Austin also issues a caution I've often flagged: the source evidence is almost entirely Greek. This is as true for the period of Alexander and – a fortiori – the Hellenistic period as it is for earlier Greek/Persian relations:
The world conquered by the Macedonians was one of many races and cultures, in which the Greeks and Macedonians, though dominant in political and social life, were nonetheless only a minority. But the evidence for that world is largely of Greek origin; it therefore reflects Greek points of view and characteristically shows only limited interest in the non Greek world.
Very true and something not always considered. It informs our gestalt of Greek and Macedonian relations and interaction with the Persian world.

On the "sons of the Hypaspists", it is interesting to note that Austin too translates this as the "men" of the Hypaspists. Hammond, writing in Hellenistic History and Culture, ed P Green states:
There will have been others (Macedonian soldiers) who went from Macedonia overseas, to serve in armies in Asia and Egypt in the thirty years up to the Battle of Ipsus in 301. Thereafter the sons of Macedones established overseas were sufficient to maintain elite forces in the Hellenistic kingdoms (an early example being the sons of Alexander's Hypaspists).
Again, no supporting evidence other than – one supposes – his own translation of the specific passage in Diodorus' description of Paraetecene. My view is that the best of the infantry were selected to form the "Hypaspists". This was a process that was continual on a replace as lost basis. But they were definitely the elite of the phalangite corps and selected on that basis. When did primogeniture replace merit? Why is such not ever mentioned elsewhere (to my knowledge)? Agesilaos, where are you when you are needed??

Hammond makes much of the assembly of Macedones (the citizen soldiers) and their role in confirming or deposing the king, a process he highlights below:
Let us turn now to the Macedones serving in the Hellenistic kingdoms. In our literary sources they are always distinguished from the Asian and Egyptian troops, even from those “armed in the Macedonian manner” (e.g., at Paraetacene, Gabiene, and Raphia), and it is they who form the Royal Infantry Guard. They were in a category of their own. It was these troops who outlawed Eumenes and others in 321...
Not to mention, turned the unfortunate bloke over to Antigonus as a down payment on their wives, children and possessions. But, hang on, weren't their children alongside them in line of battle? While it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a grizzled group of veterans in their sixties had a crèche of little ones or junior teens, Hammond states that those sons were in the line of battle as "sons of the Hypaspists". Possibly it is the girls and those too young.

In any case, when the time comes for choosing what is to be done with the Royal General, it is the Hypaspists – Alexander's Hypaspists, the Argyraspids – who do the deciding. Nary a mention of the "sons" over three thousand strong.

Most confusing. I still think these are the elite of those "trained in the Macedonian fashion". They are as likely – if not more likely – to have been the native Hypaspists flagged by Alexander at Opis. The "Successors" to the Silver Shields.

There is apparently an article Hammond refers to where he argues his rationale for this description. Couldn't lay hands on it could you Amyntoros??
Last edited by Paralus on Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:57 am, edited 4 times in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Post Reply