pothos.org

marcus wrote:

Callisto wrote:The Epirotans weren't "part of Macedonia". During the time of Philip, their relation was based on the unsteady personal relationship between Philip and Olympias, hence was far from Epirus being part of Macedon.

That's true. However, it is most probable that the only reason Epirotes were admitted to the bodyguard was because of their relationship with Olympias. I know of no non-Macedonian or non-Epirote in the somatophylakes.

In 13th century England, the main reason why Henry III clashed with his barons (led by Simon de Montfort) was because of the positions of authority that he was handing out to his de Lusignan half-brothers and their associated uncles, etc.; which he did simply because they were his mother's children and new kinfolk (she had married again after the death of King John). Now, I know that the situations were not the same, but it is a classic example of people being preferred because of kinship - just as we are talking about here with Epirotes joining the somatophylakes.

ATB

Your explanation is valid but we have to bear in mind a significant detail. There is a small number of Alexander's officers having behind them rare literary evidences in reference to their origins. This means our knowledge about them is sometimes conjectural, grounded on the personal belief of the historian. Take for instance...Is it Lysimachos the Macedonian or Lysimachos the Thessalian? Either case has valid points but we cant be 100% certain which one is the right one.

Efstathios wrote:So what does this have to do with my view on Alexander? If Arrian had written something similar, then i would be more acceptable to it, simply because of the nature of the writter.

The histories of Arrian and of Curtius are two quite different kinds of books, and Arrian includes very little information on Alexander that is of a personal nature - if he did, it would be a very different book and you’d likely have an equally different opinion of Arrian. As for the nature of the writers, well we know so very little about Curtius that we can't presume to know his nature.

Twice again you’ve dismissed Curtius as an unreliable source. And you’ve emphasized the sexuality issue because you don’t (or can’t) believe that about Alexander. I won’t comment on Alexander’s relationship with Hephaistion because there’s little in Curtius about it, however, his history includes some definitive comments about Alexander’s sexual relationship with Bagoas. I’m not going to argue about Bagoas – why would I? You could (and probably would) dismiss it all because Curtius is unreliable. Yet you said “i dont reject everything he has written. Because there other things too apart from spicey details.” If you’re rejecting certain excerpts because Curtius is unreliable, shouldn’t you be rejecting everything in Curtius that isn’t supported by another source? If you’re only rejecting what you call the spicey details and what you see as negative portrayals, isn’t that because they conflict with your personal view of Alexander? And isn’t that my point?

We all do it, to a greater or lesser degree, by the way. Much depends on how we view Alexander, but none of us are excluded.

Oh my! You actually dug out this post.

It wasn’t hard to find. I had a sense of déjà vu that we’d previously had a debate about Curtius, so I inputted Curtius and Efstathios into the search engine and clicked on Search all Terms. It came right up!

Best regards,

Callisto wrote:Your explanation is valid but we have to bear in mind a significant detail. There is a small number of Alexander's officers having behind them rare literary evidences in reference to their origins. This means our knowledge about them is sometimes conjectural, grounded on the personal belief of the historian. Take for instance...Is it Lysimachos the Macedonian or Lysimachos the Thessalian? Either case has valid points but we cant be 100% certain which one is the right one.

Well, yes; but I think there comes a point where we have to accept the balance of probability, based on what evidence we do have; as well as, to be honest, the opinions of the bulk of historians. What you say is perfectly true, of course ... but do we not run the risk of deliberately seeking out alternatives merely to refute?

(Am I being too antagonistic? I hope not ... )

And, just for the record, although I know this doesn't cover the earlier part of Alexander's career, nor Philip's:

... while up to this time Alexander's bodyguards were seven in number, Leonnatus son of Anteas, Hephaestion son of Amyntor, Lysimachus son of Agathocles, Aristonous son of Pisaeus, all from Pella, Perdiccas son of Orontes from Orestis, Ptolemy son of Lagus and Pithon son of Crateuas from Eordaea, an eighth was now added - Peucestas who had protected Alexander with his shield.
Arrian, VI.28.4 (my italics)

ATB

If you’re rejecting certain excerpts because Curtius is unreliable, shouldn’t you be rejecting everything in Curtius that isn’t supported by another source? If you’re only rejecting what you call the spicey details and what you see as negative portrayals, isn’t that because they conflict with your personal view of Alexander? And isn’t that my point?

Let's not concentrate only on the sexuality matter. Our personal views are formed by the sources. If the sources agreed that for example Alexander was lustfull for blood , then our view would be that. We couldnt have a different view, since essentially history would say that. Alexander may have been a straight or bi sexual man.It doesnt matter.The problem is with the source and it's credibility.

And, for things like these, even the writters like Plutarch and Curtius only specculated.Remember what Plutarch said about Alexander and drinking.He said that he believed that Alexander was not an alcoholic. He specculated. He gave his own oppinion. Because probably these matters were not analysed in the initial sources.

Callisto wrote:The Epirotans weren't "part of Macedonia". During the time of Philip, their relation was based on the unsteady personal relationship between Philip and Olympias, hence was far from Epirus being part of Macedon.

Oh dear, we are going to be dogmatic I see. In that case it would serve you better to include the “rider” attached to the above quoted “part of Macedonia”: to all intents and purposes. Which is to say, it was not “part of Macedonia” but that, during the period noted (esp Philip’s time) it seemed so for practical purposes. Thus an Epirote/Mollossian name in the circumstances refereed to does not surprise. More so with respect to Marcus’ point. My point being that one may as well consider Illyria – to all intents and purposes – part of Macedon for the same reasons.

I have little doubt that there was resistance to Macedonian rule. After all, Philip felt steady enough in his relationship to remove the king and decide – by fiat – who would be his subject king.

And, yes, the nature of the composition of Philip’s/Alexander’s army of invasion might prove any number of things. What it mostly shows, though, is the nature of what some others choose to call the Asian Hellenic cultural anabasis: a grand Macedonian imperial adventure. The Greeks – who were not Macedonian as well – were window dressing and, in Alexander’s campaigns, were used as such.

As to Pyrrhus “the Eagle”, well, having first defeated Demetrius’ general in single combat and then followed that up with the total defeat of Demetrius’ Macedonian army (a rare thing for Macedonian arms), he was indeed hailed as “the new Alexander”. That he made nothing of it – Demetrius’ greater resources aside – would serve to give the lie to that. In fact, he appeals more as the “feckless condottiere” that Green so well describes him as.

Perhaps it was due to the fact that erstwhile King of Macedon – Alexander III – was, not to put too fine an Attalus like point on it, a bastard of Epirote descent?

In any case, I will take a fair amount of convincing that Greeks, of the city states, ever made up Philip’s pezhetairoi, hypaspists or (before Alexander’s orientalising) the somatophylakes.

Paralus wrote:Oh dear, we are going to be dogmatic I see. In that case it would serve you better to include the “rider” attached to the above quoted “part of Macedonia”: to all intents and purposes. Which is to say, it was not “part of Macedonia” but that, during the period noted (esp Philip’s time) it seemed so for practical purposes. Thus an Epirote/Mollossian name in the circumstances refereed to does not surprise. More so with respect to Marcus’ point. My point being that one may as well consider Illyria – to all intents and purposes – part of Macedon for the same reasons.

I had been wondering if I should introduce the following into your debate, and your post has afforded me the opportunity. Winthrop Lindsay Adams in Alexander the Great: Legacy of a Conqueror has some comments about what constituted a Macedonian. After a discussion about “absorbed” religious practices, he writes:

Nothing could demonstrate the culturally diverse nature of the Macedonians better. In fact there were two meanings to the term “Macedonians.” The one which we have been dealing with is the ethnic term, but there was also a political definition. To be a Macedonian in this sense meant to hold land from the king in exchange for military service, and all land was technically king’s land, so all landholders were citizens. This status was the king’s to confer, both on ethnic Macedonians and others: Greeks, Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians, or whomever. Holding land in this sense amounted to the Macedonian definition of citizenship, and the important factor here is that it was not ethnically restrictive. The right was often extended to include other ethnic groups, thereby providing for the genuine incorporation of different elements into Macedonian society rather than simply their subjugation or conquest. This point will be essential to understanding Alexander’s approach to empire and the peoples who came under his rule.

I believe that the above also applied to any lands which were conquered – that they, in essence, became Macedonian land. I think that I’m interpreting this correctly because later in the book Lindsay Adams claims that this was Alexander’s intent in Asia when he bestowed conquered lands upon conquered people (following in Philip's footsteps). He was extending Macedonia and conferring the political status of Macedonian citizen on those people to whom he "gifted" land. In other words, had Alexander not died and the empire had been maintained, maps would have had Macedonia emblazoned upon them from the coast of Asia Minor to the far reaches of India. So, as you said, Illyria, to all intents and purposes, would have been considered a part of Macedonia.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:I had been wondering if I should introduce the following into your debate, and your post has afforded me the opportunity...

I believe that the above also applied to any lands which were conquered – that they, in essence, became Macedonian land. I think that I’m interpreting this correctly because later in the book Lindsay Adams claims that this was Alexander’s intent in Asia when he bestowed conquered lands upon conquered people (following in Philip's footsteps). He was extending Macedonia and conferring the political status of Macedonian citizen on those people to whom he "gifted" land. In other words, had Alexander not died and the empire had been maintained, maps would have had Macedonia emblazoned upon them from the coast of Asia Minor to the far reaches of India. So, as you said, Illyria, to all intents and purposes, would have been considered a part of Macedonia.

And, so, what took you so long!?

Yes, I think that is essentially a correct view. It is what I refer to as Macedonian "Lebensraum". All land was indeed the king's, and, the king's to do with as he pleased. Philip's habit of handing out parcels to his troops (and others) and transferring poulations (when necessary) to work them was widely followed by his son.

The most obvious being the garrison towns of empire complete with serfs - the former population of the area. Isocrates on steroids?

A most interesting passage from Heckel's Marshals of Alexander's Empire argues that Philip had opened the somatophylakes to Greeks.

The institution of the Royal Pages marked the beginning of the carrers of most, if not all, Makedonian aristocrats (my italics).This institution had two restrictions: age and birth. On the latter point, it is worth noting that Philip II had opened the Makenonian aristocracy to highlanders and Greeks.

Heckel then goes on to supply the names of those who fit the above assertion. Interestingly, all – bar one – are from what are, in the closing years of Philip's reign, Makedonian (to keep to Heckel's spelling) provinces: Lynkestis, Tymphaia, Elimeia and Orestis. This is in no way surprising. Philip had brought these areas of "upper Makedonia" back under royal control. It is entirely natural to expect that the loyalty of the barons of these areas will have been bought via the same "benign hostage" scenario suffered by the lowland barons. The exception is Lysimachos "whose father appears to have been Thessalian" according to Heckel who then goes on to say (in a footnote) that "Lysimachos was, however, regarded as Makedonian". He also referes to an article he himself wrote in 1976 arguing that Lysimachos was, in fact, Makedonian.

It is worth noting, though, that in Philip's time the somatophylakes were not quite what we know in Alexandr's time. The somatophylakes of Alexander – and indeed the agema – were picked individuals loyal to Alexander and in whom he could trust utterly. One might say "yes men" or sycophants. Heckel makes the point that at the time of Philip this institution was of wider scope than under Alexander:

It (the agema) comprised aristocratic troops (ex Pages), who were known in Philip's time as somatophylakes, a name that was applied to certain Hypaspists even in the early years of Alexander's reign. Thus, Ptolemy son of Lagos, who had been a member of this group, sometimes called them Royal somatophylakes (or Hypaspists if I have translated the Greek correctly).

That Makedonian nobility seem to have spent a certain part of their military education and training as a foot soldier (part of the hypaspists) is of great interest, and, a point I have made on another thread with respect to Makedonian nobles and their ability to command infantry as a general. That, though, is for the other thread. In the meantime, until Alexander began appointing people such as Bagoas to his retinue as Hetairoi, I'm of the opinion that the pezhetairoi, Hypaspists, agema, companion cavalry and the Ile basilike were of Makedonian blood. Not an Athenian (or other city state Greek) to be seen.

One last point on the institution of the pages is significant. These individuals were the "property" of the king. The entire idea being to bond the sons of the nobility to the court and - a fortiori - the king and his state.These boys semm to have entered this "benign hostage" situation at the age of around fourteen. A product of this close relationship to the king was the development of homosexual relationships. As Heckel observes:

Pausanias of Orestis seems to have been a hypaspist, but his alleged sexual relationship with Philip would have been a product of his younger days, when he served as one of the King's Pages; for it seems that homosexuality was common, if not encouraged at the court.

It will have been no different in Alexander's time.

marcus wrote: And, just for the record, although I know this doesn't cover the earlier part of Alexander's career, nor Philip's:

... while up to this time Alexander's bodyguards were seven in number, Leonnatus son of Anteas, Hephaestion son of Amyntor, Lysimachus son of Agathocles, Aristonous son of Pisaeus, all from Pella, Perdiccas son of Orontes from Orestis, Ptolemy son of Lagus and Pithon son of Crateuas from Eordaea, an eighth was now added - Peucestas who had protected Alexander with his shield.
Arrian, VI.28.4 (my italics)

ATB

I thought this Leonnatus was a Lyncestian, related to Eurydice. I will make a research about him when i find free time.

A later source about Lysimachus assosiates his father with Crannon (Thessaly). This by itself though, even if it true doesnt exclude that he was born in Pella.

Paralus wrote: Oh dear, we are going to be dogmatic I see. In that case it would serve you better to include the “rider” attached to the above quoted “part of Macedonia”: to all intents and purposes. Which is to say, it was not “part of Macedonia” but that, during the period noted (esp Philip’s time) it seemed so for practical purposes. Thus an Epirote/Mollossian name in the circumstances refereed to does not surprise. More so with respect to Marcus’ point. My point being that one may as well consider Illyria – to all intents and purposes – part of Macedon for the same reasons.

I think a more appropriate term is "a vassal state". If he intended to apply to Epirus the same status as the cantons of Upper Macedonia, his choice of Epirus' ruler wouldnt be Alexander of Epirus but someone way more obedient. Alexander is portrayed as too ambitious and not exactly fond of Philip. Most probably behind the choice was Olympias that prefered her brother as ruler of Epirus than anyone else. Note that at a certain time, Alexander incited by Olympias was ready to attack Philip. Its too suspect that in Alexander's Asian campaign the only contribution of Epirotans in military help, contrary to all their neighbours were 2-3 officers and nothing more.

Callisto wrote:I think a more appropriate term is "a vassal state". If he intended to apply to Epirus the same status as the cantons of Upper Macedonia, his choice of Epirus' ruler wouldnt be Alexander of Epirus but someone way more obedient. Alexander is portrayed as too ambitious and not exactly fond of Philip.

Yes, I'll go with vassal state. The individuals mentioned were, as Marcus says, most probably related to the royal family and were thus incorporated as were like individuals in the cantons. Either way, it is likely irrecoverable now.

No matter the input that Olympias may or may not have had, Alexander of Epirus was Philip's choice. He strikes me as a bloke who suffered neither fools nor indecision. Indeed, what does come across is a scheming mind liberally laced with the lifeblood of great leaders: perspicacity. Time and again Greek politicians were undone by this bloke who read them as they read speeches in the Athenian law courts: for a living. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that he knowingly placed on the throne of his vassal state an individual whose "not too fond" view of his patron would see him prepared to attack him one day.

All that which Olympias may well have done, although having its genesis in hatred of Philip, was conceived and carried to put her son on the throne and, so too, return the fearful old Queen Mother back to her rightful position. That she would have countenanced civil war against Philip is, on the probabilities, very unlikely. It will have set many of those who backed Alexander, after Philip's convenient murder, against him. Philip had spent a lifetime bonding commanders such as Cleitus, Parmenion, Antipater, Polyperchon and, most recently, Attalus to him. They will have sided with their King. Alexander was, at this stage, no great popular demi-god.

The lack of Epirote forces with the invasion force is intriguing (I assume you are referring to Diodorus' list). There might be any number of reasons. Alexander took only 7,000 Greek forces of the League of Corinth with him. These, for the most part, went along sight seeing (as Archange might put it). Yes, overstated but they were – at best – severly under-utilised and dispensed with or recommissioned as mercenaries as soon as practicable. Again, this was a Macedonian exercise with Greek bedclothes.

He did take (using Bosworth's figures) some 15,000 Macedonian foot and left 5,000 at home with Antipater (Bosworth's reading of the text and the corrupted figures is, I think, correct). Did Epirote forces ever serve Macedonian armies as mercenary contingents? Philip often used mercenaries – in the order of thousands – but they are never identified. Surely most were Greek. Antipater's forces will have been little different.

More reading.

Paralus wrote: Yes, I'll go with vassal state. The individuals mentioned were, as Marcus says, most probably related to the royal family and were thus incorporated as were like individuals in the cantons. Either way, it is likely irrecoverable now.

This leaves open the possibility, these molossians who found themselves in Alexander's army to be 'hostages' sent from the Molossian court during Philip's reign. Alexander of Epirus was one of them. With the exception of Arrybas, the rest are more or less at the same age. I do believe though, there are more than we believe. A certain Admetus is depicted as Macedonian but i strongly believe he is one of this Molossian clan. His name is too common in the Molossian royal house and uncommon in Macedonia.

No matter the input that Olympias may or may not have had, Alexander of Epirus was Philip's choice. He strikes me as a bloke who suffered neither fools nor indecision. Indeed, what does come across is a scheming mind liberally laced with the lifeblood of great leaders: perspicacity. Time and again Greek politicians were undone by this bloke who read them as they read speeches in the Athenian law courts: for a living. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that he knowingly placed on the throne of his vassal state an individual whose "not too fond" view of his patron would see him prepared to attack him one day.

I dont challenge that Philip had these characteristics - he certainly did - but in the specific case of choosing the head of Epirotic kingdom his alternatives are almost minimal. The candidate should be a member of the royal molossian house for obvious reasons, not a follower of Arrybas and at the time being, Olympias grabbed the opportunity to promote to Philip her young brother as the best option.

Peter Green in his 'Alexander of Macedon' p. 97 goes further to analyze it a little more.

"Alexander of Epirus was an independent and ambitious youth. The fact that he owed his throne to Philip weighed not at all with him; he probably regarded this as no more than a fair returnfor having to put up with his brother-in-law's homosexual attentions at an impressionable age"

All that which Olympias may well have done, although having its genesis in hatred of Philip, was conceived and carried to put her son on the throne and, so too, return the fearful old Queen Mother back to her rightful position. That she would have countenanced civil war against Philip is, on the probabilities, very unlikely. It will have set many of those who backed Alexander, after Philip's convenient murder, against him. Philip had spent a lifetime bonding commanders such as Cleitus, Parmenion, Antipater, Polyperchon and, most recently, Attalus to him. They will have sided with their King. Alexander was, at this stage, no great popular demi-god.

At the time when Olympias endeavoured to induce her brother Alexander to make war on Philip, she was almost in a dead end. She and her son were in exile, another woman was at her place as queen of Macedon and her unborn child posed to be a serious threat to the succession in the throne of Macedonia. The incident where her son Alexander went to Illyria, instead of Epirus as normally he should, brings a question. What was Alexander doing there?

From a skeptic's point of view this could mean easily the research of allies among Illyrians against Philip. The Macedonian army was far superior to the forces of Epirus but a possible coalition with Illyrians meant two open fronts for Philip and better chances for Olympias and Alexander.(Note that i dont claim if this was the case they would defeat Philip. Macedonian army had no match at that time.)

The lack of Epirote forces with the invasion force is intriguing (I assume you are referring to Diodorus' list). There might be any number of reasons. Alexander took only 7,000 Greek forces of the League of Corinth with him. These, for the most part, went along sight seeing (as Archange might put it). Yes, overstated but they were – at best – severly under-utilised and dispensed with or recommissioned as mercenaries as soon as practicable. Again, this was a Macedonian exercise with Greek bedclothes.

In total he had about 14,400 Allied Greeks (counted inside all the greeks nomatter mercenaries or from the League of Corinth)

James R. Ashley gives these numbers for Greeks.

Cavalry
2,400 (from Thessalia, Orchomenus, etc)

Infantry
7,000 Greek allies (league of Corinth)
5,000 Greek mercenaries

and i add the 160 triremes of the allied Greek navy.

He did take (using Bosworth's figures) some 15,000 Macedonian foot and left 5,000 at home with Antipater (Bosworth's reading of the text and the corrupted figures is, I think, correct). Did Epirote forces ever serve Macedonian armies as mercenary contingents? Philip often used mercenaries – in the order of thousands – but they are never identified. Surely most were Greek. Antipater's forces will have been little different.

More reading.

I dont think Epirote forces ever served as mercenaries in Macedonian armies but the opposite certainly became true in Hellenistic ages under Pyrrhus. There are maybe 1-2 cases in classic ages where Macedonians and Molossians made coalitions to counter the numerous Illyrian incursions in their territories. Generally Epirote werent accustomed to be mercenaries.

Callisto wrote:This leaves open the possibility, these molossians who found themselves in Alexander's army to be 'hostages' sent from the Molossian court during Philip's reign. Alexander of Epirus was one of them. With the exception of Arrybas, the rest are more or less at the same age. I do believe though, there are more than we believe. A certain Admetus is depicted as Macedonian but i strongly believe he is one of this Molossian clan. His name is too common in the Molossian royal house and uncommon in Macedonia.

G'day Callisto,

Well, of course they were. Alexander, almost certainly, among them. You'll find little disagreement here. English, it seems, is not your first language, and, I wish I could write in yours. In fact, you'll find little disagreement in what I've already written – pugnacious as it might seem. Of course these were "hostages" (benign), the same as taken from all those important to the king.

I too believe there are more. You see, we rely on very late sources – some more apologetic than others – and all "summarisers" of earlier writers. We have lost a hundredfold that which we still possess. What I would not give for a complete Theopompus – his dislike of my anti-Greek hero Philip and all. Were we to have his history ….who knows? At least it would be warts and ….more warts.

If only Philip were a Greek. I could have him up there with Cimon, Epaminondas, Pelopidas, Pericles and Cleomenes (yet another Greek imperialist…from Sparta).

Now, to the Green quote. How dare you use my favourite historian against me? The historian of whom Paul Cartledge has said the following:

In my Alexander bookI tried to cover all possible bases, to pay tribute to all the many friends and colleagues…who had in any way contributed to my formation as a historian of Greece and the Middle east in the later fourth century…The first, Tom Holland (Persian Fire; Rubicon)…The other, Peter Green, is the nonpareil of ancient historians, formidable alike in his thematic range, his acuteness of judgement and his fluency of expression.

(Thermopolae, McMmillan, 2006)

Oh dear, I only wish I might have written it. We will lose a formidable intellect when he departs the stage.

Now, back to the point. Of course he will have experienced that homo-erotic relationship that – I'm sure – all the pages were subjected to at court. It was the Macedonian agoge. He will either be bonded to his senior (Philip) or decide he was his better, as Agesilaos (as King) did with his "sponsor" Lysander.

To the figures. The Thessalians had been part of the Macedonian army since Philip was pronounced "Archon" of the League. This was a fact his son announced with telling effect after his accession. Generally, they don't count as "Greeks": they had fought in Macedonian armies for some two decades before the anabasis.

"Mercenaries". Absolutely. Philip has been attested to have had some six thousand or more in service. Did they come from Athens, Laconia, Arcadia or Messenia? They are not ever denoted.

One might be tempted to suggest that Epirus – Alexander's grandstanding Italian adventure aside – didn't really have a citizen or standing army (or one not worth the noting) at the time of Philip's reign (or his son's accession)? Lord knows, Alexander's allies in Italy knew an imperial pretender when they saw one and promptly topped him

Paralus wrote: I too believe there are more. You see, we rely on very late sources – some more apologetic than others – and all "summarisers" of earlier writers. We have lost a hundredfold that which we still possess. What I would not give for a complete Theopompus – his dislike of my anti-Greek hero Philip and all. Were we to have his history ….who knows? At least it would be warts and ….more warts.

Greetings Paralus,

I agree with that but it seems we have to stick with the available material. However i do have a slight disagreement with the way some modern historians classify in their 'prosopographies' almost everyone as ethnic Macedonian even if the available evidence is sometimes obscure. I think the earlier 'prosopographies' from Hoffmann and Berve, were more ample for their time. The latest ones (Heckel, Tatake, etc), regardless of copying the Germans, are based too much on literary sources and especially Heckel doesnt give much credit on epigraphic sources and in the frequency or absence of a name in Macedonia.

Now, to the Green quote. How dare you use my favourite historian against me? The historian of whom Paul Cartledge has said the following:

In my Alexander bookI tried to cover all possible bases, to pay tribute to all the many friends and colleagues…who had in any way contributed to my formation as a historian of Greece and the Middle east in the later fourth century…The first, Tom Holland (Persian Fire; Rubicon)…The other, Peter Green, is the nonpareil of ancient historians, formidable alike in his thematic range, his acuteness of judgement and his fluency of expression.

(Thermopolae, McMmillan, 2006)

Ah its one of my favourite tactics to use quotes coming from the fave historians of the people i discuss. This way, i avoid others to discredit the source and gives only me all the pleasure to discredit theirs

I hope for Cartledge's career not to have wrote indeed "Thermopolae".

To the figures. The Thessalians had been part of the Macedonian army since Philip was pronounced "Archon" of the League. This was a fact his son announced with telling effect after his accession. Generally, they don't count as "Greeks": they had fought in Macedonian armies for some two decades before the anabasis.

Well, Thessalians have been subdued and fought along with Persians against Greeks during Persian wars but still they were counted as "Greeks".

"Mercenaries". Absolutely. Philip has been attested to have had some six thousand or more in service. Did they come from Athens, Laconia, Arcadia or Messenia? They are not ever denoted.

One might be tempted to suggest that Epirus – Alexander's grandstanding Italian adventure aside – didn't really have a citizen or standing army (or one not worth the noting) at the time of Philip's reign (or his son's accession)? Lord knows, Alexander's allies in Italy knew an imperial pretender when they saw one and promptly topped him

Someone, i think James Ashley if i am not wrong, suggests that the advance force of Parmenio and Attalus had also a considerable number of Greek mercenaries but i dont know where he gets it from and i am not aware of any other historian sharing this view.

We simply dont know the strength of Epirote army at Philip's reign. You see we havent got many historians to be involved with the history of Epirus, prior to Pyrrhus era. Alexander of Epirus suffered the same fate of all those summoned by the Italian Greeks. Instead of joining him in the struggle against their enemies, they were content to sit back and let him do the fighting for them. His military campaign until the moment these ingratitude blokes decided to quarrel with him, was successful.

G'day Callisto.

Callisto wrote: However i do have a slight disagreement with the way some modern historians classify in their 'prosopographies' almost everyone as ethnic Macedonian even if the available evidence is sometimes obscure. I think the earlier 'prosopographies' from Hoffmann and Berve, were more ample for their time. The latest ones (Heckel, Tatake, etc), regardless of copying the Germans, are based too much on literary sources and especially Heckel doesnt give much credit on epigraphic sources and in the frequency or absence of a name in Macedonia.

Now, that's an argument we can't have. Not for the fact that we can't discuss the subject the way the ancients viewed, but, for the fact that we will be invaded by moderns bearing ethnic grudges. Suffice to say that, as far as names and views of the ancients are concerned, I am totally in the Cartlege camp:

…the very Greekness of the Macedonians was fiercely contested: it was an issue then, as it has been unhappily in more recent times, whether and how far the ancient Macedonians were true-blue Hellenes. Mythological genealogy was on their side…Etymology was perhaps on their side…But custom and practice – what the Greeks called nomos – and above all language seemed to tell crucially in the other direction.

Thermopylae

As to the Olympic Games recognising Alexander I, well, that's all they recognised: Alexander, the king. The Makedones were not ever mentioned. And, I will venture no further.

The misspelling of Thermopylae was entirely mine and in no way associated with the good Mr Cartledge. Too many Christmas parties and no excuse.

Parmenio's advance force most certainly contained mercenaries and these will have made up Alexander's totals. Going on – again – Bosworth's reasoning, that force will have contained some 3,000 Macedonians. These were, to the later half of the fourth and early third centuries, the Spartans of their time. They would, over the next decade, prove their worth over and again – as they had on Greek soil. By the time of the Diadochoi they were to Diadoch armies what the Homoioi were to early fourth century Peloponnesian armies: the fast diminishing cream of the crop.

And, to go back to the original tangent of this thread, they were Macedonian and much sought after. Ask Eumenes (who, apparently, needed a Macedonian to talk to them).