The "Fred thread": the Argead Macedonian Army

[Paralus]

Just back to the source material here...

...Theopompus, who, while fairly contemporary with Philip, was an orator rather than a historian....

I do not see why that would disqualify him as an historian. Theopompus lived at Philip’s court during the late 340s (from about 343 according to Speusippas' letter to Philip) and was contemporary with the events of which he wrote. To quote Hammond (Philip of Macedon):

Theopompus, born some thirty years later (than Ephorus) and outliving Alexander, "combined the flair of a first rate historian" wrote G.T.Griffith, "with the flair of the second rate journalist for misinterpretation by hyperbole". Living at the court of Philip in the late 340s, he knew Macedonia and Philip, whom he regarded as the central figure of his time. His facts were accurate, however harsh and prejudiced his judgements might have been.

He [Theopompus] tells us that Philip’s guards were called ‘pezhetairoi’. Theopompus was also known for his wild stories, so he is hardly a reliable source. Demosthenes does not in fact refer to Hypaspists as ‘pezhetaroi’. That is pure inference.

It is doubtful that Theopompus’ notice here of pezhetairoi could be categorised as a “wild story”.

Dem 2.17: Hence it is not difficult to see how the majority of the Macedonians regard Philip. As for his household troops (?????)and footguards (??????????), they have indeed the name of admirable soldiers, well grounded in the science of war; but one who has lived on the spot, a man incapable of falsehood, has informed me that they are no better than other soldiers.

Demosthenes clearly contrasts the majority of the Macedonians (peeved at the continual campaigning) and the pezhetairoi (and either mercenaries or "guest-friends"): they are a distinct unit.

Theopompus is in any event contradicted by another source contemporary with Philip – Anaximenes ( who incidently wrote a lampoon of Theopompus)…

Anaximenes was a rhetorician. I do not know if that disqualifies him as an historian – I’d think not.

… [Anaximenes] tells us that the Macedonian army reform were started by ‘Alexander’ II (Alexander II reigned 370-368 BC; he and Perdiccas were both Philip’s elder brothers who were killed) […] Alexander bestowed the name ‘Hetairoi’ on all the heavy cavalry ( probably no light at that time)and ‘all’ the infantry were called ‘pezhetairoi’. He describes the infantry being organised in units ( lochoi) cositing of files ten deep. (decades).

The notice is merely “Alexander”; Alexander II is your supposition. The fragment – taken as written – claims that the entire re-organisation of the Macedonian military (including teaching the Macedonian nobility to ride) was accomplished by a single “Alexander”. That such was achieved by the single monarch is rather reminiscent of the Spartans according every constitutional / social reform to “Lycurgus”.

Brunt (Anaximenes and King Alexander I of Macedon) writes the following:

Nor for the very same reason can Anaximenes have alluded to Alexander II, who in any case reigned barely a year, and to whom any great military reorganisation cannot plausibly be ascribed.

With which I’d agree.

The evidence of Anaximenes is probably to be preferred to Theopompus who was careless about facts, or perhaps confused about nomenclature ( c.f. Dionysus of Halicarnassus, who clearly describes Roman ‘Triarii’ but mistakenly calls them ‘principes’ – here we have Philip’s ‘Foot-companions’, and Theopompus probably was aware that ‘hetairoi/companions were a guard unit, so such a mistake would be easy.)

Again, the fellow lived at the court and one might suppose that to be something of an egregious error. Anaximenes, on the other hand, is not beyond criticism as Brunt observes:

If Anaximenes attributed its creation to Alexander I, his statement was quite unhistorical. But the very text of the fragment ought to suggest that it is a piece of fiction. It is not at all plausible that any single man taught the Macedonians ??????? (to ride horseback) or devised the whole of the later Macedonian military system.

Finishing with:

We should not in my view even suppose that his testimony has some unidentifiable substratum of truth. All that it permits us to infer is that the institutions he mentions are earlier than the time of Philip II, of whose innovations he could not have been ignorant, and perhaps somewhat remote.

In fact both Hammond and Griffith (the latter using the fragment to argue for Alexander III) have noted that Anaximenes was not noted for his accuracy as Anson (Eumenes of Cardia) so delicately puts it.