AN OBSCURE UNIT IN ARRIAN – HEKATOSTYS

[agesilaos]

The meaning of this word is certainly not obscure, it means ‘a group of one hundred’, but just to what the term referred is a different matter.

Conventionally the hekatosys is seen as an alternate name for the two lochoi into which each ile was divided at Sittacene (Arr. Anab. III 16 xi). To rehearse the maths; 1,800 Macedonian cav at the Hellespont equals three-hundred in the ile basilikon plus 1,500 in seven iles (III 11) so an ile is 215 or so strong and hence half an ile, a lochos, about 100.

Alternatively some see the Hipparchies divided into lochoi and hekatosys with the ile dropping out in favour of the term lochos.

In his article ‘The Argaeads and the Phalanx’, in Carney and Ogden ‘Philip II and Alexander the Great: lives and afterlives’ OUP 2010, A B Bosworth suggests that far from being a sub unit of the cavalry the hekatostys was an infantry unit.

The word occurs but twice at VI 27 and VII 24, on both occasions in the context of distributions, of pack animals in the former and sacrificial meat and wine in the latter.

VI 27 has ‘…kat’ilas te kai hekatostyas, tois de kata lochous…’
VII 24 ‘…kata lochous kai hekatostyas…’

The conventional wisdom, following Tarn’s lead has the cavalry receiving two donatives once at the ile level and again at that of hekatostys this must be wrong so Bosworth suggests ile for the cavalry, hekatostys for the Macedonian infantry and lochos for the other troops. This seems a neat solution with a hierarchical progression.

But at VII 24 he has to assume that here lochos refers to the new cavalry units and hekatostys to the infantry. Hekatosys is such a rare word that it seems more than likely that the passages in which it occurs stem from the same source; given that one would expect the words to carry the same meaning, so either the cavalry were exclude from the distribution of sacrificial meat and wine, surely unlikely, or the reference ‘kat’ ilas’ has dropped out of the text. The constructions and the contexts argue for this solution. This does not alter Bosworth’s point , though, hekatostys refers to a sub-division of the Macedonian infantry.

Bosworth continues, ‘they were probably one hundred strong, in paper strength at least.’ I think we can do better than this. The phalanx was based on a file (dekas) of sixteen; six files would be 96 men but that would mean there would be 2 2/3of these in what the theorists consider the smallest unit with supernumery officers, the ‘syntagma’ of sixteen files. True eight files yield 128men and so is a possibility. But let us consider this, a hekatosys receives the same allotment as a cavalry ile of 215 and a lochos of indeterminate number. It is inconceivable that a common infantryman would receive twice the ration of his mounted, noble comrade. The units should be roughly similar in strength. The best match then is the aforementioned syntagma of 256 but that seems rather too big to be called a ‘Hundred’.

Until we think back to the file, sixteen men but called a ‘Ten’; a ‘Hundred’ is ten files of ten: but ten files of sixteen won’t serve, but sixteen files of sixteen is what we expect. The basic manoeuvring block is a square since any change in facing maintains frontage and depth without the need for further evolutions. Originally this was the Hundred and just as the file retained its old name despite the increase in strength, so the old manoeuvring block retained its old name of hekatostys even though it was now over twice as strong.

[Paralus]

Very interesting. De Selincourt's Penguin translation neatly passes over the matter at both notices ("the officers [...] each squadron, company and platton" at 6.24.6 for example). It does, though, make sense of the passage.

I don't have the benefit of Bosworth's paper - not having the book (evidently an oversight on my part). Lochos more than likely refers to the cavalry as its use for "file" seems to be a later Hellenistic convention (as the "Tacticians" indicate). In the "Calssical" armies lochos would equate, in rough terms, to a syntagma of Alexander's army. Pays to be careful though for what does one make of 3.9.6? Here alexander addresses his officers: the lochagon te lokhitas; the ilarkhen ten ilen; the taxiachous tas taxeis and the hegemones ton pezon ten phalagga. If the order is anything to go by then the lochagon te lokhitas must command a subdivision of the cavalry? Much debate there be about lochoi / Ilai /hypparchies in the later cavalry of Alexander's army. Another subject...

There is no mention of the entire army at 6.27.6 as far as I can gather but there most certainly is at 7.24.4 (stratia) and so the foot companies must be included. One assumes they must also have been included in the "dromadarial" distribution of 6.27.6 unless we conclude they were left out of both.

The solution of "dekades" has appeal. The term, in Philip and Alexander's time logically refers to a file of ten. The syntagma or basic unit of the phalanx - a square I agree - necessitates a ten by ten. Clearly by the time of Issos (if not before) this unit had become sixteen by sixteen for there is no over-arching tactical reason for Alexander to create a 256 man syntagma simply to experimentally integrate Persian into the phalanx; the syntagma by now was a 256 man block. The tempting explanation (though speculation) for this is Philip's incorporation of "Upper Macedonia" into the army and the resultant influx of numbers into the phalanx ranks of what had been a lowland peasant army.

The word is rare: the Perseus corpus contain only four instances. Outside of Arrian they are Plutarch (Rom. 8.6) and Xenophon's Cyropaedia (6.3.34). In the former units of 100 infantry are described and the latter untis of 100 chariots. Both are largely fictional - Plutarch's mythical Romulus clearly so - but that Plutarch would use the word to describe units of 100 foot is interesting.

[spitamenes]

The solution of "dekades" has appeal. The term, in Philip and Alexander's time logically refers to a file of ten. The syntagma or basic unit of the phalanx - a square I agree - necessitates a ten by ten. Clearly by the time of Issos (if not before) this unit had become sixteen by sixteen for there is no over-arching tactical reason for Alexander to create a 256 man syntagma simply to experimentally integrate Persian into the phalanx; the syntagma by now was a 256 man block. The tempting explanation (though speculation) for this is Philip's incorporation of "Upper Macedonia" into the army and the resultant influx of numbers into the phalanx ranks of what had been a lowland peasant army.

Do we have any evidence of Alexander making any changes to the army before leaving Macedonia? I would think after his ascention to the throne, he would be eager to utilize his power by tweeking things a bit to suit his favor. And this change could be something that he felt was neccessary to make in order to make the units most effective. They would be fighting a much larger army soon so why not expand for the occasion?

[Paralus]

Do we have any evidence of Alexander making any changes to the army before leaving Macedonia? I would think after his ascention to the throne, he would be eager to utilize his power by tweeking things a bit to suit his favor. And this change could be something that he felt was neccessary to make in order to make the units most effective. They would be fighting a much larger army soon so why not expand for the occasion?

As always - surprise, surprise - there is nothing in the literary evidence that directly and incontrovertibly indicates such a change made by Alexander. There are, as always, small clues.

Firstly Issos:

Arrian 2.8.2-3; 10.1 & 3:
At the approach of dawn he began to descend from the pass along the road; and as long as the space was narrow everywhere, he led his army in column, but when the mountains parted so as to leave a plain between them, he kept on opening out the column into the phalanx, marching one line of heavy armed infantry after another up into line towards the mountain on the right and towards the sea on the left. Up to this time his cavalry had been ranged behind the infantry; but when they advanced into the open country, he began to draw up his army in order of battle [...] Having thus marshalled his men, he caused them to rest for some time, and then led them forward, as he had resolved that their advance should be very slow [...] At first he still led them on in close array with measured step, although he had the forces of Darius already in distant view, lest by a too hasty march any part of the phalanx should fluctuate from the line and get separated from the rest.

I have edited out the incidentals (the arrangemnt of the battle lines and the heroic Alexander addressing his troops) so as to leave the advance of the Macedonian array as best as. What Arrian, likely working from Ptolemy going back to Kallisthenes, leaves out is the phalanx evolutions. These are provided in a splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes by Polybios:

Pol. 12.19.5-7; 20.1-2:
...he [Kallisthenes] goes on to say "that Alexander heard of the entrance of Darius into Cilicia when he was a hundred stades away from him, having already marched through the pass: that he therefore retraced his steps through the pass, his phalanx on the van, his cavalry next, and his baggage on the rear. But that as soon as he had debouched upon the open country, he gave general orders to form up into a phalanx, at first thirty-two deep; then sixteen; and lastly, when they were nearing the enemy, eight deep." [...] Again, he says that Alexander was marching in line when he was about forty stades from the enemy. A greater blunder it is difficult to conceive. For where could one find a ground, and especially in Cilicia, twenty stades broad by forty deep, for a phalanx armed with sarissae to march in line?

The critique of Kallisthenes is wrong and, here, irrelevant. What is relevant is the evolution of the phalanx from column into diphalangia (32 deep) into sixteen deep and finally down to eight to fill out the plain. Whilst Arrian leaves out the numerical evolutions, that they happened and that the phalanx advanced in battle formation for some distance is evident from his description of just how slowly and carefully Alexander advanced. Arrian clearly describes Alexander moving his infantry from column into battle line and for this to ocurr it had to fall from column of march into phalanx so as to be marched up into line.

The "clue" resides in the only other description of Alexander's phalanx depth and that is at Pelium in Illyria:

Arr.1.6.1:
Then Alexander drew up his army in such a way that the depth of the phalanx was 120 men; and stationing 200 cavalry on each wing, he ordered them to preserve silence, receiving the word of command quickly.

The evolution described by Kallisthenes is the norm - we have other descriptions of phalanx depth such as Antiochus III at Magnesia where his phalanx is 32 deep. All those figures are products of eights or sixteens depending how one views the normal fighting depth of the phalanx. Here Arrian unequivocally reports a depth of 120. This is not a product of eight or sixteen; it is a product of ten. It is, therefore, tempting to see this as evidence that the file at this time was a ten man dekad.

[agesilaos]

Pelium looks instructive only if one believes that the sources would not round off a number like 128 to 120 and that 'decads' were instituted by Philip (I will be effusing more ink on that subject later in response to E M Anson's 'Philip II and the Creation of the Macedonian Pezhetairoi'). Personally I believe that the most logical interpretation of Anaximenes is that Alexander I introduced the system influenced by his Achaemenid overlords who Herodotos makes plain used a decimal system, Greeks seem to have favoured a base of eight or twelve in the case of the Spartans. Arguments that Philip adopted it from Thebes are totally fallacious as at the time of his hostageship their files ranged from sixteen to fifty (in fact at the Nemea they agreed to array sixteen deep as a compromise with their allies then went fifty deep instead and started the battle leading to disaster). Philip may have adopted the depth of sixteen from them, the action of depth in a pike phalanx would be different from that in a hoplite one.

Any accretion in manpower would be used to broaden the front, which is ,after all, why Alexander went to eight deep at Issos, danger lay on the flanks. An alternative would be to hold a tactical reserve but that does not seem to be part of early Hellenistic tactics, Gaugamela's tactical box being an exception.

At III 9 vi 'lochoi' must be allied/mercenary infantry since cavalry lochoi were not created until later. The level of command is also higher than a mere 100 cavalrymen. We have all the allied/mercenary commanders then the Macedonians in descending order of rank Ilarchs (250cav) taxiarchs (1,500 inf) hegemones possibly the syntagmarchs so 256 infantry; pentecosiarch 500 was a command level introduced at Sittacene along with the cavalry lochoi also the 'hegemones' of the Amphipolis regulations seem to be more than file leaders but less than strategoi which would suit this rank.

[Paralus]

Pelium looks instructive only if one believes that the sources would not round off a number like 128 to 120 and that 'decads' were instituted by Philip (I will be effusing more ink on that subject later in response to E M Anson's 'Philip II and the Creation of the Macedonian Pezhetairoi').

I don't necessarily ascribe the idea of decads to Philip though he is more likely to have done so for the Macedonian infantry. Arrian is fine noting sixteen deep later and, whilst he does not care to mention depths throughout, he would have known that 128 will have been the requisite number. His source surely did? But perhaps I'm expecting a little too much...

Personally I believe that the most logical interpretation of Anaximenes is that Alexander I introduced the system influenced by his Achaemenid overlords who Herodotos makes plain used a decimal system, Greeks seem to have favoured a base of eight or twelve in the case of the Spartans.

I'm far more comfortable with Brunt's view as it sits comfortably with much of how such things are presented in Greek history (Lycurgus of Sparta comes to mind). That a single king instituted all the reforms supposedly attested to an Alexander is not likely. The problems are well known: Alexander III demostrably did not create the Companion Cavalry and Alexander I just as clearly did not create a large Macedonian force of foot.

Proposals that this is all down to Alexander II fly in the face of reality. That this monarch had the time to do so whilst sidestepping spears, worrying about rivals and dodging Theban interference is highly unlikely. In the end, it likely was a gradual thing but I'd think Ed Anson clearly correct in that the expansion of the "Companionate" (the hetairoi) and the foot soldiery was solely down to Philip II.

If there is anything that is an attested certainty it is the clear lack of any decent Macedonian foot prior to Philip II. Indeed, the repeated view from the close of the fifth century through to Sparta's meddling with the Chalcidian League is that the Macedonian infantry was non-existent to the extent of being useless. In the latter instance Agesilaos' brother (Teleutias??) instructs Amyntas to bribe his enemies and hire mercenaries should he wish to get his kingdom back. In the end he "sold" off portions to alternate enemies to preserve his position.

Arguments that Philip adopted it from Thebes are totally fallacious as at the time of his hostageship their files ranged from sixteen to fifty (in fact at the Nemea they agreed to array sixteen deep as a compromise with their allies then went fifty deep instead and started the battle leading to disaster). Philip may have adopted the depth of sixteen from them, the action of depth in a pike phalanx would be different from that in a hoplite one.

Agreed. He may well have adopted the loaded wing from Thebes but the depth is another matter.

Any accretion in manpower would be used to broaden the front, which is ,after all, why Alexander went to eight deep at Issos, danger lay on the flanks.

Hence the use of files of ten originally? The city states fought largely limited wars on restricted areas of plain - hence armies of 8-12,000 hoplites on average and depths of 8-12. I agree with respect to the flanks but, given Philip had essentially doubled his available manpower after settling the matter of the "Upper" kingdoms, he might well have depened to sixteen; especially he may have deployed these foot soldiers on larger plains (culminating in Chaeronea).

At III 9 vi 'lochoi' must be allied/mercenary infantry since cavalry lochoi were not created until later. The level of command is also higher than a mere 100 cavalrymen. We have all the allied/mercenary commanders then the Macedonians in descending order of rank Ilarchs (250cav) taxiarchs (1,500 inf) hegemones possibly the syntagmarchs so 256 infantry; pentecosiarch 500 was a command level introduced at Sittacene along with the cavalry lochoi also the 'hegemones' of the Amphipolis regulations seem to be more than file leaders but less than strategoi which would suit this rank.

Agreed on the Amphipolis Regualtions but terminology changes (peltasts, for example, are not skirmishing light troops of the earlier era - especially as one group is the king's footguard).The mention of lochoi might well be anachronistic for it is certainly directly associated with the cavalry ilai (which can really only be the Macedonian cavalry). I'd suspect that were it applied to the mercenaries that misthophoroi might have found its way in. Hegemones is certainly associated with the phalanx and the taxiarchs. I think this lochoi refers to cavalry units as the Thessalians were also formed in ilai. It appears earlier at Issos where Alexander addresses the "the generals, but also those of the captains of cavalry and infantry". Thus here the translator decides that "alla kai ilarkhas kai lokhagous onomasti" means "the captians of the cavalry and the infantry by name". Its next appearance is, of course, Sittacene where the ilai are subdivided into two "lochoi".