pothos.org

Hello all,It occured to me how the relationship of these oft used units must have evolved over time. The Agrianes must have been the rougher, more barbaric lot, and probably complemented the Royal Guard in action. I see the Royal Guard as more civilized and formally trained. Alexander probably used the Agriane to push and compete with his guard units. They must have already been quite familiar with each other and each other's abilities before Alexander came to the throne. I wonder how these units got along in the beginning, and later on...after Hydaspes? Certainly, there was by this time mutual respect, and even more certainly, a realization of how much each needed the other to survive. Thoughts please,Nicator

I seem to remember that the Agrianians joined Alexander to go on the campaign after 335. Wasn't their king Langarus, who reached an agreement with Alexander to deal with the last of the recalcitrant Thracians while Al went off to Illyria?In which case, they hypaspists (or others) wouldn't necessarily have been very familiar with the Agrianians, except when they might have fought them at other points in the past.(If I've got the Langarus bit wrong, apologies - and wait for a response from someone who has an opportunity to check! :-)All the bestMarcus

Hello everybody!I would say that the Agrianes were more flexible and adaptable units (sth like special ops of modern warfare). Actually they were used to get the "dirty job" done p.e every time there was mountains to climb for a surprise attack. In most of the battles were in the same flank with the archers showing a fast close-combat unit able to defend the archers in close encounters.The royal guard were heavier due to their armour, slower, and they couldn't afford to lose a battle. After all they had a reputation to protect and they should always prove themselves to their generals, the mercenaries and their enemies.

Of course there was a kind of competition among units. It is common even in modern military because competition is vital for improvement. Therefore the royal guards should prove themselves better than the "barbaric" Agriannes and vice versa. There must have been a difference of attitude though, since the sources do not mention the Royals guards pillage or destroy conquered cities or areas. Important point is that the Agriannes were never used all together. They were split as a supplement among other units making it difficult for them to abbandon battle all together thus leaving a side of the army exposed.It is certain that there was mutual respect between all military units, but it seems that Agrians were "afraid" of the royal guards. It was a good way to control them and probably that is why there was no mention of them rebelling against their commanders especially in the beginning of the campain.After sometime though the name Agriannes must have remained only as a title or military specialization (like todays "Marines" "rangers" "seals" ecc) because they were never reinforced with more Agriannes from their homeland and for sure they had some casualties during the battles. There probably was some kind of "internal" reinforcement.Panos

Hello Pano,
Wasn't it Hammond that said there were several levies of reinforcements of troops from the Balkans which reinforced the Agriannes and the Thracian contingents? My copy of Hammond is back at the Library for now, but I was able to get Green back. Also, I would mention that if the Agriannes were as ruthless and effective as the sources seem to indicate, then their casualty rate may have been comparitively low. Just a thought.
Nicator

Hello NicatorIt is true that they were skillful and ruthless warriors (the title Agrianes it is suggested that derives from Agrios = wild/ferocious). During the sieges though (especially Alikarnassus and Tyre) they were used to protect the mechanics and later for the first attacks. Imagine an Agrian in front of heavily armoured defenders......So i think their numbers would easily shrink during the operations.About the reinforcements: it was impossible for them to receive formal combat training. They were coming from a poor and scarsely populated area in the northern border of the kingdom where the combat training would be considered luxury.
So I do not think that the combat units were signiffically reinforced from "Agrianes" but from "mercenaries" coming from their regions.We have to consider also the internal stability of the military: the Agrianes should be inside the core but "under surveilance". They were there for the loot so they were susceptible to bribe. Persians officials of course knew that and it is certain that they would try to take advantage of this. So, even if the reinforcements were Agrians 100% it is probable they would be "adapted" (trained) and "asigned" to other combat units.Panos