The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paralus]

My personal approach to reconstruction has always included a bias toward modeling upon better documented analogs when faced with a dearth of hard data (a habit grown out of my past career in geology). This takes the position that 'absence of proof' is not 'proof of absence'

With which I would not usually disagree. The total absence in this engagement is distinctly remarkable and begs an explanation (see below).

Indeed, failure to mention the participation of light infantry that must have been present in a battle was extremely common among those writings I've previously studied regarding the 5th and early 4th centuries B.C. (including Diodorus, who was reflecting sources more contemporary with the events being retold) - it seems that the poor foot skirmisher rarely got any literary attention unless he played a particularly prominent role, more than simply doing his usual job in victory or screwing up royally in defeat.

Now that is well true of the "light armed" of the classical period. These are, to classical armies, what the thetes were to the Athenian navy: rarely written of but the bulk of the calcium on the bottom of the eastern Aegean from 411 onwards. As you say they are recorded usually when it is impossible to leave them out or they "stuff up" - Demosthenes' use of them being the salutary example from the classical period (and even then Thucydides - that inveterate hoplite - has to remark on the outstanding nature of the hoplites who fell in Acarnania).

Arrian's Anabasis, though, is an entirely different matter. In this monograph the light armed are rarely (if ever to my recollection) left out when actions are described: set piece or otherwise. The premier unit - the Agrianes - are attested at least fifty times in Arrian's Anabasis from the Thracian/Danube campaign to India. They (and others) are mentioned either side of this engagement but not in it. It is possible that Arrian was lazy in this description; the descriptions of engagements immediately preceding and following in no way make it probable though. If there is one thing the “disciple” of Xenophon is reliable for it is the enumeration of taxeis or units that take part in actions – even if he confuses matters more than once. Arrian only describes phalanx infantry and cavalry and, without even the odd aside about other troops, this was all Alexander managed to get over the Danube.

Diodorus “reflecting” more contemporary sources is problematic. I’m not sure he can be relied upon to be a “mirror” for those sources he might have used – though I might misread that for “utilising”. The current “Hieronymean industry” (for books 18-20) is a case in point: just how far Diodorus is a “mirror” for Hieronymus is extremely debatable. There is a good likelihood that the Cardian was not his direct source.

I still maintain that the bulk of the evidence points to these troops being armed with hoplite gear as both Nick Sekunda ("wearing the dress and equipment of a Greek hoplite prior to Philip's re-armament")…

“Prior to Philip’s re-armament” – not having the publication I can’t check: to exactly what and when?

This data includes a number of literary references to them carrying large, aspis shields…

I’m unaware of such. I’d have thought the high priest of hypaspist-hoplites, Minor M. Markle, might have adduced them in his papers on this (and the distinct lack of use of the infantry sarisa by Alexander).

Markle, in his “quest”, has made much of the source material (Arrian) including the hypaspists in the “lighter armed” troops of the army at times. Aside from his (understandable) predilection for translating certain terms as “lightest armed”, the evidence does not support him. Markle’s centrepieces are the march on the Cilician Gates where the Agrianes and the hypaspists are taken by night for a surprise attack. This Markle says “explicitly distinguishes the hypaspists from the "taxeis" of the phalanx proper, which were more heavily armed because they carried the sarissa” (The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 81, No. 3. p. 330). He goes on to say that the same is indicated by the march on the Persian gates where Alexander left “the Grecian allies, the Mercenary auxiliaries, and the rest of the more heavily armed soldiers” whilst taking with him the “Macedonian infantry, the Companion cavalry, the light cavalry used for skirmishing, the Agrianians, and the archers”.

We later find out that the hypaspists are amongst the “Macedonian infantry” but they are not alone: several battalions of the previously “more heavily armed” phalanx infantry are also in this force. Markle skirts this by claiming that the phalanx infantry were armed with javelins. Nothing like having your pike and eating it too eh?

Seems that the phalanx could be armed for the occasion; suggesting that the reverse applied for hypaspists is, somehow, heresy. That, though, is another post.