11-22-2010, 10:21 PM
There is no "Thracian State". There are a good twenty different and independent Thracian tribes which have their own policies and side with the one or the other side. Certainly some of the tribes are closer to the Argeads, some may have certain agreements. The Illyrians are also certainly not a force representing all Illyrian tribes but a mercenary force or certain tribal leaders. Sitalces only had control over certain tribes, not all, exactly like Perdiccas is attested to be the leader of the Macedonians, while the Lyncestians for example (and other non Argead Macedonian tribes) are not under his control. Of course nothing can be said with certainty, Thucydides is just not as descriptive as we would like him to be. As for your argument about "the Macedonians", of course they are the Hetairoi of Perdiccas, but this explanation is not needed for the lack of any other mention regarding other Macedonians. Here, Thucydides is clearly only talking about the cavalry force alone and as such you are right to look for the Macedonian infantry. ("????? ?’ ?? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ???????"). One argument could be that there Thucydides didn't find it interesting or did not know the exact number of the Macedonian infantry, as he also does not say anything about any Greek psiloi but wanted to tell us that apart from the main army there were a lot of barbarian mercenaries/allies. Another explanation could be that he regarded the Macedonian infantry as barbarian, as you suggest, although I would expect from him to name them as he always does when he knows the ethnicity of an army, so I personally would dismiss that theory. Anyways, the remains that the passage in question cannot be used as an argument, since it is too unclear. Your theory about the Macedonian/conquered/vassal serfs merits discussion, but I would expect from Thucydides to have discussed this someplace in his work as he does with such matters, if something so strange was happening that made him choose to make such a distinction in the Macedonian populace. He certainly does discuss ethnic affiliations and ethnogenesis in these chapters. Maybe he offers such data and we missed it? I will look through it again.
