Unit strengths and organisation

[agesilaos]

This is a continuation from the Hypaspist Uniform thread but seems too general to remain there, for context I would suggest reading the last page(s) of that thread.

My initial objection to the proposal that phalanx units were 2,000 strong under Alexander and that the Hypaspist corps consisted of four pentkosarchia stems from the basis for the premise. Two assumptions are required, firstly that the Hellenistic manuals represent a true picture of the military organisation of the period and secondly that Diodoros or his source was really differentiating between those troops who only crossed from Europe to Asia with Alexander and not including any of the advanced party. The latter falls immediately as Diodoros’ cavalry total exceeds his stated total by 600; it would seem that members of the advance guard have been included.

The problem with the stated figures is that they are out of their original context, they are contextualised by the transmitting author thus:

Kallisthenes ap Polybios XII 19 1 Very similar are his statements about Alexander. He says that when he crossed to Asia he had forty thousand foot and four thousand five hundred horse, 2 and that when he was on the point of invading Cilicia he was joined by a further force of five thousand foot and eight hundred horse. 3 Suppose we deduct from this total three thousand foot and three hundred horse, a liberal allowance for those absent on special service, there still remain forty-two thousand foot and five thousand horse
τούτοις δ᾽ ἐστὶ παραπλήσια τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον. φησὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν ποιήσασθαι τὴν εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν διάβασιν, πεζῶν μὲν ἔχοντα τέτταρας μυριάδας, ἱππεῖς δὲ τετρακισχιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους, 2] μέλλοντι δ᾽ εἰς Κιλικίαν ἐμβάλλειν ἄλλους ἐλθεῖν ἐκ Μακεδονίας πεζοὺς μὲν πεντακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δ᾽ ὀκτακοσίους. [3] ἀφ᾽ ὧν εἴ τις ἀφέλοι τρισχιλίους μὲν πεζούς, τριακοσίους δ᾽ ἱππεῖς, ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖον ποιῶν τὴν ἀπουσίαν πρὸς τὰς γεγενημένας χρείας, ὅμως πεζοὶ μὲν ἀπολειφθήσονται τετρακισμύριοι δισχίλιοι, πεντακισχίλιοι δ᾽ ἱππεῖς.
Plutarch De Fortuna Alexandri I 327 D-E ’…relying only on the thirty thousand foot and four thousand cavalry which were his; for, according to Aristobulus, that was the full extent of their number. But King Ptolemy puts them at thirty thousand foot and five thousand horse, Anaximenes at forty-three thousand foot, fifty-five hundred horse.’

There are other references but, like Arrian’s, in rounded numbers based on these. Polybios characterises Kallithenes’ figures as those that he had once he had crossed into Asia, ie his whole force including the advanced force was 40,000 foot and 4,500 horse, simply accounting for the difference between this number and Dodoros’ totals by assuming the inclusion of the advance force won’t work; Diodoros gives the same total for the horse, 4,500, it is the sum of his detailed unit breakdown that amounts to 5,100. The transmission of numbers is frequently faulty but more so in Latin and Greek texts where the litteral shorthand is used rather than the numbers being written in full; i.e. it is a far simpler matter for ‘IIIrem’ to become ‘IIIIreme’ than ‘triremis’ to become ‘quadremis’ here the figures are written in full in the surviving MSS. Textual corruption, like lacuna, is an argument of last resort and seems unlikely in the case of Diodoros’ list, as does an error inhis own addition. I would suggest that whilst the totals were taken from his source as being ‘those that crossed into Asia’, the detailed breakdown belonged to the description of the Granikos battle which Diodoros displaced to, what seemed to him, a more suitable juncture(the same being true for Ptolemy’s numbers, though they were rounded). Aristoboulos’ seeming statement that Alexander had but 30,000 foot and 4,000 horse might also belong to this juncture, the comments that he was ‘relying on’ and that this was’ the full extent of their number’ would fit a battle situation better and remove the blatant clash of Aristoboulos and Ptolemy with Kallithenes’ 40,000 foot after the crossing. Eight thousand mercenaries could have been detailed to secure lines of supply and garrison the towns already taken or may represent the garrisons established by the bridgehead force.

There does not ever seem to be a separation along the lines of those who crossed with Parmenion and those who followed under Alexander, as there is a distinction between those who were present at the start of the expedition and those who reinforced them,
Arrian III 12 ii

οἱ ἀρχαῖοι καλούμενοι ξένοι καὶ ἄρχων τούτων Κλέανδρος.
The so-called old mercenaries under their leader Kleandros.

Diodoros XVIII 16 iv

ἦγε δὲ πεζοὺς μὲν τῶν εἰς Ἀσίαν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ συνδιαβεβηκότων ἑξακισχιλίους, τῶν δ᾽ ἐν παρόδῳ προσειλημμένων τετρακισχιλίους, Πέρσας δὲ τοξότας καὶ σφενδονήτας χιλίους, ἱππεῖς δὲ χιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους.
He brought with him six thousand foot soldiers from those who had crossed into Asia with Alexander and four thousand from those who had been enlisted on the march, one thousand Persian bowmen and slingers, and fifteen hundred horsemen.

There seems little to suggest that Diodoros’ 12,000 does not represent all the Macedonians who started the expedition and that to restrict it to just ‘those who crossed’ the Hellespont in 334 is to impose a modern precision which a Greek would consider ‘sophistry’.

In the case of the manuals they have to be used carefully, but ought not to be used selectively. If a unit of 1.500 is not a step in the manuals with regard to infantry then we also have to note the anomalous sizes of elephant troops and chariots which should progress by doubling too. Nor do we find the theoreticians’ terms occurring in the narrative sources and meaning the same thing.

The important level is that of the basic tactical unit which the manuals dub a ‘syntagma’, Polybios a ‘speira’ and was possibly the ‘hekatostyes’ in Alexander’s army. This is the square formation where the number of ranks and files are equal and there are officers outside the body of the unit. It is quite a red herring to suggest that the depth of 120 attested at Pelion is compatible with units of 2,000 but not 1,500; the real question is how is it compatible with the lower level organisation of 256 men per syntagma? In two files a syntagma has a depth of 128 men, that this was rounded to 120 ought not to surprise us. Contrariwise, the intermixing of units necessary to obtain a depth of exactly 120 gives the lie to the precision of the figure rendering any arguments based upon it invalid.

There is no reason why any number of sub-units should not form a larger unit. Aristoboulos’ phalanxes (all too often called ‘taxeis’; ‘taxis’ is a general word meaning ‘unit’ and nothing more technical and should not be used as such), might consist of three pentekosia each of two syntagma, we do hear of ‘a third of such a troop…’ but four such pentekosia is equally viable.

So we will have to examine the attested divisions of the army and see what emerges; when this proves inconclusive (were it not there would be no controversy) we can move onto the evidence of phalanx figures in Diodoros XVIII-XX and then later battles. Finally we can consider the evidence for the number of recruiting districts as presented by Jan Rzepka in ‘The Units of Alexander’s Army and the District Divisions of Late Argaead Macedonia’, which is available online.

Now I will get trawling for those references!

[Paralus]

Finally we can consider the evidence for the number of recruiting districts as presented by Jan Rzepka in ‘The Units of Alexander’s Army and the District Divisions of Late Argaead Macedonia’, which is available online.

I'll be most interested in reading what you think. Not to colour others perceptions, but Rzepka (good read though he is) takes a view of the ancient Macedonian monarchy and "central government" akin to how the US Supreme Court views the US constitution: very technical. In fact, he sometimes makes Hammond appear a minimalist. It is, as I say, an interesting read though I disagree with his highly structured Macedonian constitutional monarchy (ditto Hammond).

On the phalanx numbers subject - for 18-20 - you will find 3,000 often used for elite groups such the Argyrapids. It is not limited to this though and the number occurs almost as regularly as Persia's 300 triremes in the "Ephoran" books. Deserters seem always to conveniently number 3,000: the 3,000 that deserted Antigonus (though in Polyaenus, it is likely from the same ultimate source as Diodorus), the 3,000 that deserted Eumenes. The 3,000 (again the Argyraspids) at Triparadeisus immediately spring to mind as well. Then one has to factor in the 8,500 infantry given to Antigonus in Arrian, the almost 8,000 of them at Paraetecene, the 10,000 infantry with Craterus, the 5,000 with Antigonus at Orcynia and the 2,000 with Demetrius at Gaza. Just to call to mind a few.

[agesilaos]

Looking at Arrian the first numbers we come across are for the force which crossed the Danube and said at I 3 vi

ἱππεῖς μὲν ἐς χιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους, πεζοὶ δὲ ἐς τετρακισχιλίους.

1,500 cavalry and 4,000 foot

On the face of it a direct hit for the 2,000 per phalanx theory, but we are dealing with an exceptional force here, as is stated earlier in the chapter Alexander crosses with as many men as he can board on the locally available shipping; he would not have taken fewer men simply because they did not constitute a full unit. Also we are told that the commander of the infantry is Nikanor (I 4 ii). Nikanor is not given a patronymic but the most likely candidate is Parmenion’s son, the archihypaspist which would imply the presence of at least some hypaspists; one might reasonably expect these men to be used as a strike force as they are an elite. Sadly, they may be 2,000 strong with a full phalanx or 3,000 strong with 1,000 selected from the ordinary phalangites. Unusually, Alexander seems not to have taken any light troops, possibly they are hidden in the 4,000 (1,000 archers and Agrianes, the force we find at Pelion later, would leave 3,000 heavies; all the hypaspists?) it is a possibility but they do not appear in the subsequent narrative.

At I 11 we get Arrian’s figure for those crossing into Asia

11. He led with him not much over 30,000 infantry together with light-armed troops and archers, and more than 5,000 cavalry.

In chapter 18, however

ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἐκ Μαγνησίας τε καὶ Τράλλεων παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἧκον ἐνδιδόντες τὰς πόλεις: καὶ ὃς πέμπει Παρμενίωνα, δοὺς αὐτῷ δισχιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους πεζοὺς τῶν ξένων καὶ Μακεδόνας παραπλησίους, ἱππέας δὲ τῶν ἑταίρων ἐς διακοσίους. Ἀλκίμαχον δὲ τὸν Ἀγαθοκλέους ἐπὶ τὰς Αἰολίδας τε πόλεις ξὺν δυνάμει οὐκ ἐλάττονι ἐξέπεμψε καὶ ὅσαι Ἰωνικαὶ ὑπὸ τοῖς βαρβάροις ἔτι ἦσαν.

18. MEN now came to him both from Magnesia and Tralles, offering to surrender those Cities; and to them he sent Parmenio, giving him 2,500 infantry from the Grecian auxiliaries, an equal number of Macedonians, and about 200 of the Cavalry Companions. He also sent Alkimachus, son of Agathocles, with an equal force to the Aeolic cities, and to as many of the Ionic cities as were still under the Persians

These 2,500 Macedonian, twice are awkward under either system; traditionally one phalanx and an Hypaspist chiliarchy serves, heretically a 2,000 man phalanx and a Hypaspist pentekosiarchy. Once again no case is proven.
The story of the siege of Halikarnassos, however adds some useful clarification Chapter 22

22. The second party, which sallied forth by the triple gate, was met by Ptolemy, one of the royal body-guards, who had with him the regiments of Addaeus and Timander and some of the light-armed troops. These soldiers likewise easily put the men of the city to rout; but as the latter in their retreat were fleeing over a narrow bridge which had been made over the ditch, they had the misfortune to break it down by the weight of their multitude. Many of them fell into the ditch, some of whom were trampled to death by their own comrades, and others were struck by the Macedonians from above. A very great slaughter was also made at the very gates, because they were shut before the proper time from a feeling of terror. For the enemy, being afraid that the Maeedonians, who were close upon the fugitives, would rush in with them, shut many of their friends out, who were slain by the Macedonians near the very walls. The city narrowly escaped capture; indeed it would have been taken, had not Alexander called back his army, to see if some friendly sign of surrender would be made by the Halicarnassus for he was still desirous of saving their city. Of the men in the city about one thousand were slain; and of Alexander’s men about forty, among whom were Ptolemy, one of the king’s body-guards, Clearchus, a captain of the archers, Addaeus, who had the command of a thousand infantry, and other Macedonians of no mean position restored the battle under a man named Atharrias.

________________________________________

[4] τοῖς δὲ κατὰ τὸ Τρίπυλον ἐκδραμοῦσιν ἀπήντα Πτολεμαῖος ὁ σωματοφύλαξ ὁ βασιλικός, τήν τε Ἀδαίου καὶ Τιμάνδρου ἅμα οἷ τάξιν ἄγων καὶ ἔστιν οὓς τῶν ψιλῶν: καὶ οὖτοι οὐδὲ αὐτοὶ χαλεπῶς ἐτρέψαντο τοὺς ἐκ τῆς πόλεως. 5] ξυνέβη δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἐν τῇ ἀποχωρήσει κατὰ στενὴν γέφυραν τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς τάφρου πεποιημένην φεύγουσι τήν τε γέφυραν αὐτὴν ὑπὸ πλήθους ξυντρῖψαι καὶ πολλοὺς αὐτῶν ἐς τὴν τάφρον ἐμπεσόντας τοὺς μὲν ὑπὸ σφῶν καταπατηθέντας διαφθαρῆναι, τοὺς δὲ καὶ ἄνωθεν ὑπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων βαλλομένους [6] ὁ πλεῖστος δὲ φόνος περὶ ταῖς πύλαις αὐταῖς ξυνέβη, ὅτι ἡ ξύγκλεισις τῶν πυλῶν φοβερά τε καὶ πρὸ τοῦ καιροῦ γενομένη, δεισάντων μὴ συνεισπέσοιεν τοῖς φεύγουσιν ἐχόμενοι αὐτῶν οἱ Μακεδόνες, πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν φιλίων τῆς εἰσόδου ἀπέκλεισεν, οὓς πρὸς αὐτοῖς τοῖς τείχεσιν οἱ Μακεδόνες διέφθειραν[7] καὶ παρ᾽ ὀλίγον ἧκεν ἁλῶναι ἡ πόλις, εἰ μὴ Ἀλέξανδρος ἀνεκαλέσατο τὸ στράτευμα, ἔτι διασῶσαι ἐθέλων τὴν Ἁλικαρνασσόν, εἴ τι φίλιον ἐνδοθείη ἐκ τῶν Ἁλικαρνασσέων. ἀπέθανον δὲ τῶν μὲν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἐς χιλίους, τῶν δὲ ξὺν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἀμφὶ τοὺς τεσσαράκοντα, καὶ ἐν τούτοις Πτολεμαῖός τε ὁ σωματοφύλαξ καὶ Κλέαρχος ὁ τοξάρχης καὶ Ἀδαῖος ὁ χιλιάρχης, οὗτοι καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν οὐκ ἠμελημένων Μακεδόνων

Who were Addaios and Timandros? Since their units are contrasted with ‘ton psilon’ the light infantry they must be heavy units, yet they appear neither at Granikos nor Issos in the phalanx proper so the likelihood is that they are Hypaspist commanders, Addaios is given the rank of chiliarch, so we can see that the organisation was based on 1,000 man units this early and therefore was at the time of the crossing, there is no hint of a re-organisation this early in the campaign. The units of Adaios and Timandros are given equal status and probably represent two chiliarchia of hypaspists. The status of Ptolemy is controversial; he has been seen as one of the inner Seven and that after his death here his place passed to Hephaistion. But, like Mark Twain, rumours of his death seem to have been greatly exaggerated, as he is also reported amongst the dead at Issos

7] καὶ ἐνταῦθα πίπτει Πτολεμαῖός τε ὁ Σελεύκου, ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος, καὶ ἄλλοι ἐς εἴκοσι μάλιστα καὶ ἑκατὸν τῶν οὐκ ἠμελημένων Μακεδόνων.

who in turn are described as ‘ouk emelemenon Makedonon’ ‘among those Macedonians not to be ignored.’ Ie notable Macedonians which describes the Hypaspistai rather more than the peasantry of the phalanx and the agema more than any other part of that corps. Ptolemaios’ somatophylakia, then is no more than and no less than leadership of the agema; otherwise he would not out-rank the Hypaspist chiliarchs. This suggests a tripartite division in the hypaspistai with two chiliarchia and an agema of undisclosed size. This is already more than the two thousand allowed if the common phalanx units were 2,000 strong and only five are counted.

I 29 details Macedonian reinforcements as 3,000 infantry and 300 horse, arriving at Gordion, but neither figure is likely to reflect full units and although they may represent the annual levy from six recruiting grounds (since the ordinary phalanx was certainly recruited from designated areas and those recruits kept together- kata ethne- it would follow that an army with six phalanxes, like Alexander’s would only draw on six areas (Diodoros’ use of regional descriptors in his account of Gaugamela suggesting there was no more complex arrangement, as pertained in the Kleisthenic trittys, for example with its union of a city, coastal and plain constituency.)

The restricted frontage at the battle of Issos may provide a clue. Polybios XII 17 iv states that the space between the sea and the hills was ‘not more than 14 stadia’ this translates 8495 feet or about 2832 yards. 12, 000 heavy infantry eight deep occupy 1500 yards (allowing no gaps between units) the 14, 000 posited 1750. 1,800 Thessalians in 25 man rhomboi (7 troopers deep and in 7 files) occupy 504, the Companions in 64 man wedges would occupy 422 but 300 cavalry were taken out of the main line to watch Dareios’ force on the mountains, I will let these be the prodromoi and the Paeonians, the 2,000 theory only has a maximum of 156 yards in which to fit various light units and the Greek mercenary cavalry, as opposed to the traditional count’s 406; not decisive and subject to any amount of manipulation I admit but given that the cavalry required twice the amount given here if it were to manoeuvre, according to Polybios, the extra 2,000 troops do cause a degree of cramping.

Book III contains the oft quoted passage where 6,000 Macedonians are left to guard the treasure of Persis

19. .3 He instructed Parmenio to deposit the money which was being conveyed from Persis in the citadel at Ecbatana, and to hand it over to the charge of Harpalus ;“ for he had left this man over the money with a guard of 6,ooo Macedonians and a few horsemen and light-armed infantry to take care of it. He told Parmenio himself to take the Grecian mercenaries, the Thracians, and all the other horsemen except the Companion cavalry, and march by the land of the Cadusians into Hyrcania. He also sent word to Clitus, the commander of the royal squadron of cavalry, who had been left behind at Susa ill, that when he arrived at Ecbatana from Susa he should take the Macedonians who had been left there in charge of the money, and go in the direction of Parthia, where also he himself intended soon to arrive.

These men, who are almost certainly all normal phalanx men, are to join Alexander In Parthia under Kleitos. Before this happens we have this division of the forces with Alexander

23. Having divided his army into three parts, he himself led the way by the shortest and most difficult route, at the head of the most numerous and at the same time the lightest division of his forces. He despatched Craterus at the head of his own brigade and that of Amyntas, some of the archers, and a few of the cavalry against the Tapurians; and he ordered Erigyius to take the Grecian mercenaries and the rest of the cavalry, and lead the way by the public thoroughfare, though it was longer, conducting the waggons, the baggage, and the crowd of camp-followers. After crossing the first mountains, and encamping there, he took the shield-bearing guards together with the lightest men in the Macedonian phalanx and some of the archers,

Krateros, then has two phalanxes and possibly 500 more men whereas Alexander with the hypaspists and the nimblest of the phalangites from these units out-numbers them. No, if nothing has dropped out then the whole phalanx minus two units equals 6,000 men, fitting perfectly with 1,500 per phalanx. Krateros would have 3500 minus the ‘nimblest’ Alexander the 3,000 hypaspists plus these making his ‘the lightest yet most numerous division’, were the units under Krateros 2,000 strong each for a total of 4500 he would be stripping out ¼ or more of their strength (possibly all the officers ( Arrian VII 23 on the authority of Aristoboulos

Each company was led by a Macedonian decurion, and next to him was a Macedonian receiving double pay for distinguished valour; and then came one who received ten staters (monthly), who was so named from the pay he received, being somewhat less than that received by the man with double pay, but more than that of the men who were serving as soldiers without holding a position of honour. Next to these came twelve Persians, and last in the company another Macedonian, who also received the pay of ten staters; so that in each company there were twelve Persians and four Macedonians, three of whom received higher pay, and the fourth was in command of the company.

Which is certainly possible, but does mean a unit has to be assumed to have dropped out on no evidence other than that it does not fit a theory with a tenuous premise. We normally deplore this practice; though, the state of the evidence must blunt any attack and allow that the truth may be hidden by the casual attitude of the sources towards such technicalities.

[Xenophon]

I am in the process of preparing a response, but everyone will have to be a little patient.....

[agesilaos]

Oh good, I can continue after the response; otherwise everything will get swamped. This is not the end , nor even the beginning of the end but it may be the end of the middle bit of the beginning Apologies to W S Churchill