Thank you, I made it out of there no worse for wear. Unfortunately, the last few months have been kind of a whirlwind. I got to see quite a bit of Europe, but I've hardly had a chance to sit down and relax. Speaking of which, I have to go to the States for a training trip this very Sunday!
Eumenes was a real treat, and maybe we can compare notes on it some time. I also wanted to tell you that enjoyed reading your article on the Argyraspides!
Semiramis,
I don't think hostage-taking was part of the deal. Well, not in the "7,000 'allied' hoplites" sense. Just part and parcel of breaking the old societies, strengthening the position of the new status quo, etc.
I'll respond to the rest in a bit!
EDIT:
OK, now that the duty day is over, I think I can try to dig myself into a bit of trouble!
I was under the impression that the vast majority of the 40-50,000 in reinforcements that Alexander received following his crossing to Asia were non-Macedonian mercenaries. I will be completely honest with you, though--since having my external hard drive/electronic library fail, I have been bereft of a number of pertinent articles on the matter, including Bosworth's take on the matter. I do have my Arrian, Q. Curtius, etc., handy, though, and I could have sworn that less than 7,000 "new" Macedonians in all join Alexander after Granicus.
So I guess it all comes down to what Macedon's manpower was to begin with. Alexander took something over 15,000 Macedonians with him with that initial force, plus the reinforcements received between 331-330 (6,000 foot, 500 cavalry), plus however many Antipater was keeping as a standing force for himself. Again, I'm clueless and "unarmed" at the moment regarding a lot of these subjects.
Could it be less a case of "bleeding" Macedon's manpower and more a case of "stretching it" from one side of the world to the other? Can anyone else illuminate me?