Ethnic composition of the Epigoni?

[Kit]

Can anyone tell me what was the ethnic composition of the 30,000 Epigoni that Alexander ordered to be trained in the Macedonian fashion in 327BCE?Bosworth states that they were recruited from the North Eastern satrapies? Why were no other units raised from elsewhere in the empire? Egypt, Babylonia etc?Should we read anything specific into this?Kit.

[amyntoros]

I think that there could have been soldiers recruited from other parts of the empire, Egypt in particular. After the mutiny at Opis, Diodorus [XVII.110.1] says, "At this time Peucestes arrived with twenty thousand Persian bow-men and slingers. Alexander placed these in units with his other soldiers, and by the novelty of this innovation created a force blended and adjusted to his own idea." The footnotes to the Loeb edition of Diodorus here refer to Peucestes as having been rewarded with the satrapy of Persia after saving Alexander's life.Now according to my old Loeb edition of Curtius (1946), there was a second Peucestes; not the one who protected Alexander during the battle with the Mali, but a different Peucestes who was put in charge of Egypt after Alexander's return from Siwa. See Curtius IV.6.4:"But the imminent war, of which a much greater burden remained, had put an end to the season for leisurely travel. Therefore he put Aeschylus the Rhodian and Peucestes the Macedonian in charge of Egypt, giving them 4000 soldiers for the defence of that region, and ordered Polemon to defend the mouths of the Nile ; for this purpose thirty triremes [5] were given."The translator, summarizing a lacuna in Curtius, refers to the Peucestes who "arrived" at Opis with twenty thousand bow-men and archers as being the same one who had been put in charge of Egypt (and not the one who had followed Alexander to the east and back). I'm inclined to agree with him here. I'm not too familiar with logistics, but it seems to me that the latter Peucestes wouldn't have had sufficient time to recruit that many troops and train them to be a part of Alexander's army. So I'm inclined to agree that these archers had been mustered by the other Peucestes from his own province of Egypt, and were therefore Egyptian and not Persian as Diordorus states. (Of course they weren't officially called Epigoni, but they still became part of Alexander's army.)Just my humble opinion on this, though those with a more substantial knowledge of military matters will probably leap to correct me. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Or maybe it was a mixture of both!I can't remember off the top of my head, but I *think* it is specifically mentioned in Arrian that Alexander ordered these chaps to be trained, before he went off to the east. This means, of course, that by the time Peucestas became satrap in 325/4, they had already been recruited and gone through around 4-5 years' training.The main problem with your theory that it might have been the 'other' Peucestas(es) is that Arrian explicitly states that it was Peucestas the satrap of Persis, who arrived at Babylon with those troops. Of course, Arrian could have got mixed up - but if I'm right that the epigoni had already been picked in 330, then it's more likely that it was *that* Peucestas.The only other thing is that I doubt (although I don't know for sure) that Egypt could have provided as many as 20,000 troops - which suggests that it might have been a mixed force, if they weren't *all* from the 'upper' satrapies.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

And we must always defer to Arrian when it comes to military matters, must we not? Okay, I'm only kidding here and I do understand the value of Arrian on military matters, although I'm still intrigued. It seems definite in both Diodorus and Arrian that the twenty-thousand were in addition to the Epigoni. Diodorus says:"In this year Alexander secured replacements from the Persians equal to the number of these soldiers whom he had released, and assigned a thousand of them to the bodyguards stationed at the court. In all respects he showed the same confidence in them as the Macedonians. At this time Peucestes arrived with twenty-thousand Persian bowmen and slingers. Alexander placed these in units with his other soldiers...etc., etc."Arrian (VII.6.1 ) specifically states that the Epigoni who arrived were "trained to warfare in the Macedonian style" and then later (VII.22.1) he has Peucestes arriving with an army of twenty-thousand Persians (and Cossaeans and Tapurians). And, yes, in both instances the writers describe these new arrivals as Persian, and it is only my translation of Curtius that interprets them as Egyptian. You did suggest the possibility that Arrian could have been mixed up here, but I think you are just trying to be polite! I suppose it would be unlikely that *both* Peucestes arrived in Babylon at the same time and were confused in the sources. On the other hand, why wouldn't Alexander have also recruited from Egypt? Why completely ignore the military population of an entire country so close to Persia? From what I've been able to find out, bowmen and slingers were the major force in the Egyptian army. Like you, I had thought that twenty-thousand seemed too large a force out of Egypt, but I've since learned that Ramses I in his Kadesh campaign had four divisions consisting of five thousand men each. But then again, I don't think there's any mention of the Persian army utilizing Egyptian soldiers either...Ah, I'm just presenting my thoughts here and not trying to convince anyone that it was so. Maybe I should just keep my nose out of military threads in the future and stick to what I know! :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Hi Linda Ann,I don't think you need to keep out of military threads at all.I don't have the advantage of having my books with me when visiting the forum, so have to confess that you've caught me out with the earlier Arrian reference to the Epigoni (VII.6). Seems as if I was mistaken.However ... (got to pop out for a few minutes - will resume shortly). :-)Marcus

[marcus]

However (to continue), I'll need to go back and check the various accounts, purely because it's always seemed to have been accepted that the Epigoni were Persian - so the question is how this conclusion was arrived at. I have to say that it seems unlikely (to me) that Persia and surrounding areas could have provided so much manpower in one go, which suggests that other satrapies of the empire must have provided men to make up two distinct forces of that sort of size. I still reckon that Egypt would not have provided more than a portion, but you are right that, in fact, they might not all have been Persian.(By default I think that 'Persian' in this case ought to include 'Median', too, at the very least - from the point of view of the Greek and Roman sources the line is always quite blurred between the two. Whether there's anything in the Persian sources that provide more info I don't know - one for Jona, I think.)All the bestMarcus