SoA Forums

When mentioning Pierre Juhel's Armes, Armement et Contexte Funéraire dans la Macédoine Hellénistique: Avec un appendice sur les trouvailles d'armes relatives à l'archaïsme et aux débuts de l'époque classique en Macédoine & sur ses confins in the Currently Reading thread, I said that one of his appendixes contained an interesting suggestion about Alexander I and the origins of the Macedonian army. This note summarises Juhel's suggestions.

The process begins with Juhel's belief that in Hellenistic Macedonia, arms and armour were State property, as evidenced by kings' names on Macedonian shields - "Of King Demetrios" and so on - and evidence for royal armouries. Quite a few fragments of these shields have turned up, but not in burials - mostly as dedications in sanctuaries. Although burial with weapons is common, most of the arms excavated from Hellenistic Macedonian burials are either hunting weapons or else, in the richer tombs, the expensive personal gear of rich officers and aristocrats; not, Juhel suggests, the state-issued weaponry of the royal army.

This is not true of Archaic 6th-century Macedonia where burials of middle rank included both offensive and defensive weapons, including helmets (mostly Illyrian, some Corinthian), metal parts of shields, and cuirass fittings. Classical burials are more similar to Hellenistic ones in that they often include spearheads and knives, less often swords, rarely defensive armour. Conclusion: Archaic warriors owned and were buried with their own gear but Classical and Hellenistic ones weren't. The transition comes somewhen around 500 BC.

The second step in the argument is the often-quoted passage from the Byzantine lexicon the Suda under the heading pezetairoi (well, actually "pezaiteroi"):

QuoteΠεζαίτεροι: Δημοσθένης ἐν Φιλιππικοῖς. Ἀναξιμένης δὲ ἐν α# Φιλιππικῶν περὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου λέγων φησίν: ἔπειτα τοὺς μὲν ἐνδοξοτάτους ἱππεύειν συνεθίσας ἑταίρους προσηγόρευσε, τοὺς δὲ πλείστους καὶ τοὺς πεζοὺς εἰς λόχους καὶ δεκάδας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς διελὼν πεζαιτέρους ὠνόμασεν, ὅπως ἑκάτεροι μετέχοντες τῆς βασιλικῆς ἑταιρείας προθυμότατα διατελῶσιν ὄντες.

Demosthenes in [the] Philippics [sc. mentions them]. Anaximenes [of Lampsacus] in [book] one of Matters Philippic, speaking of Alexander, says: "then, after making the most renowned men accustomed to serving as cavalry he gave them the name of companions, but the majority and the foot-men he divided into lochoi and dekadas and the other archai and named them foot-companions (pezetairoi), in order that both groups might share in the royal companionship and continue [to serve] with the utmost zeal."

(From the Suda online, http://www.stoa.org/sol/ )

There has been much debate about which "Alexander" this refers to.

It cannot be Alexander III, the Great, unless there is some major error in the text, because we know from references in Demosthenes and elsewhere that the pezetairoi already existed under his father Philip II. So was it Alexander I or II?

Alexander I (r.c.498-454) had a long and successful reign and expanded his kingdom considerably. He has been argued against because during the reign of his son Perdikkas II the kingdom was invaded by Sitalkes of Thrace, and the Macedonian infantry are then described by Thucydides as pretty useless, suggesting any reform was later.

Alexander II (r.371-369) is the other candidate. Recently Christopher Matthew has argued that he is meant in the Suda passage, and he was the beneficiary of a visit by Iphikrates who created the Macedonian pike-phalanx. But Alexander II has been argued against because his short reign gave him little time for a major military reform, and any such reform did not save his successor Perdikkas III from military disaster.

(Both candidates suffer from "it all fell apart after them" syndrome. I think we have to accept that whoever did what, Macedonian royal military power periodically collapsed. Whether that's an argument against either king as a reformer, or just indicates that any regular army survived only as a remnant and an idea, is another question.)

Juhel favours Alexander I, because:

- He cites an argument by Nick Sekunda, in an essay on the army in the Companion to Ancient Macedonia (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Companion-Ancient-Macedonia-Blackwell-Companions/dp/1405179368/): no Greek army was organized into units of ten, but Achaemenid Persians were. But  "Alexander" of the Suda passage introduced the dekas, the unit of ten, for his foot-companions. He must have chosen this sub-unit size under Persian influence. Alexander I of course ruled as an Achaemenid vassal until 479.

- Alexander I issued coins showing an Illyrian-helmeted head. Juhel sees them as a predecessor of the shield-helmet coins of Alexander III and later kings, and suggests that the obvious symbolism of helmet-coins is to proclaim military power and - possibly - even to pay the army.

- The disappearance of defensive arms from burials, or at least their becoming a lot rarer, coincides roughly with the reign of Alexander I. It seems odd to use a reduced presence of arms as an argument for a reformed army, but Juhel's argument is obviously that issued helmets and shields were state property, so weren't buried.

- The commonest type of helmet in this period remains the Illyrian, but plainer variants - without edge decoration - are characteristic of the period around 500 BC. Juhel argues that this is an indication of state production, economising on decoration.

So Juhel is suggesting that under Persian influence, Alexander I created a new infantry force, called pezetairoi "Foot-Companions" and  issued by the crown with equipment - at least, with helmets and shields. Juhel doesn't say what sort of shields - and, like the helmets, shields don't crop up all that often in burials. I think the implication is that he thinks hoplite shields were issued, but I don't see that he explicitly says so anywhere. Earlier Archaic Macedonian burials with Illyrian helmets occasionally include hoplite shields (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dandiffendale/11247265815), but others have smaller shields (http://www.pronews.gr/istoria/205849_ekthesi-makedonikoi-thisayroi-sto-arhaiologiko-moyseio-pellas) instead. But it might mean that the Macedonian infantry in the Persian army at Plataia were hoplites with uniform Illyrian helmets, organised into files of ten.

Duncan, thank you.  Tremendiously useful and fascinating both at the same time.  Appreciate you taking the time to post.

Alexander 1st under the Persians seems reasonable. He had the stability, but also it's possible to envisage Persian approval of a loyal vassal on the frontier who creates a small regular force for 'internal policing' and to to provide them with useful auxiliaries.

The forming them in tens is probably unusual for hoplites, but I cannot see it being an obstacle

Alexander I appears to have been something other than a loyal vassal to the Persians.  If anything, despite an outward show of compliance he seems to have had a lifelong hatred for them, having:

1) Murdered their embassy (for misconduct) while he was still the heir.
2) Warned the free Greeks of Xerxes' and Mardonius' plans on more than one occasion.
3) Perhaps taken part in cutting up Artabazus' returning contingent after Plataea (Herodotus ascribes this to the Thracians but for some reason the Wikipedia article on Alexander I involves him in the process).  In any event, he became independent and was in no hurry to renew fealty.

None of this would per se prevent him from overhauling the army.  However we lack evidence of this army in action, whereas the army of Alexander II defeats that of Pausanias and then conducts a successful campaign in Thessaly.  It is also very tempting to associate the reforms with the presence of Iphicrates.  Thucydides' assessment of Macedonian infantry would thus be of the pre-reform version, which would appear to fit.

On the basis of performance, Alexander II would seem to be favoured.  The evidence of burials is presumably less than conclusive; the increasing uniformity does seem on balance to point to state-issued equipment under Alexander I, the question being whether such a reform in the ownership and issuing of equipment is indissolubly connected with a reform in organisation, or whether it occurred without the latter, which awaited a different reign.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2018, 07:27:10 AM
Alexander I appears to have been something other than a loyal vassal to the Persians.  If anything, despite an outward show of compliance he seems to have had a lifelong hatred for them, having:

1) Murdered their embassy (for misconduct) while he was still the heir.

And married his sister to the Persian officer commanding

When Amyntas after having made of him this request had departed, Alexander said to the Persians: "With these women ye have perfect freedom, guests, to have commerce with all, if ye so desire, or with as many of them as ye will. About this matter ye shall be they who give the word; but now, since already the hour is approaching for you to go to bed and I see that ye have well drunk, let these women go away, if so it is pleasing to you, to bathe themselves; and when they have bathed, then receive them back into your company." Having so said, since the Persians readily agreed, he dismissed the women, when they had gone out, to the women's chambers; and Alexander himself equipped men equal in number to the women and smooth-faced, in the dress of the women, and giving them daggers he led them into the banqueting-room; and as he led them in, he said thus to the Persians: "Persians, it seems to me that ye have been entertained with a feast to which nothing was wanting; for other things, as many as we had, and moreover such as we were able to find out and furnish, are all supplied to you, and there is this especially besides, which is the chief thing of all, that is, we give you freely in addition our mothers and our sisters, in order that ye may perceive fully that ye are honoured by us with that treatment which ye deserve, and also in order that ye may report to the king who sent you that a man of Hellas, ruler under him of the Macedonians, entertained you well at board and bed." Having thus said Alexander caused a Macedonian man in the guise of a woman to sit by each Persian, and they, when the Persians attempted to lay hands on them, slew them.

21. So these perished by this fate, both they themselves and their company of servants; for there came with them carriages and servants and all the usual pomp of equipage, and this was all made away with at the same time as they. Afterwards in no long time a great search was made by the Persians for these men, and Alexander stopped them with cunning by giving large sums of money and his own sister, whose name was Gygaia; --by giving, I say, these things to Bubares a Persian, commander of those who were searching for the men who had been killed, Alexander stopped their search.


doesn't sound like an awfully enthusiastic search, nor was it driven by any great urgency to get at the truth.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2018, 07:27:10 AM

2) Warned the free Greeks of Xerxes' and Mardonius' plans on more than one occasion.
3) Perhaps taken part in cutting up Artabazus' returning contingent after Plataea (Herodotus ascribes this to the Thracians but for some reason the Wikipedia article on Alexander I involves him in the process).  In any event, he became independent and was in no hurry to renew fealty.

All these happened after Macedonia had been a Persian vassal state for over 30 years. There is no reason why the Persians shouldn't have smiled on Alexander in the years before this, especially if he could be relied upon to dispose of people without leaving evidence

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2018, 07:27:10 AMHowever we lack evidence of this army in action...

There is some. Apart from the presence of Macedonians at Plataia,

QuoteDemosthenes, in the speeches Against Aristocrates and the speech On Organisation, mentions that the barbarian withdrawing after defeat in the battle of Plataea were attacked by Perdiccas, who ruled in Macedonia at the time. In return, he supposedly received a special award from the Athenians.

(from https://www.academia.edu/5911382/When_did_Alexander_I_of_Macedon_get_his_cognomen_Philhellene)

Quote from: Demosthenes "On Organization" 24On an earlier occasion, when Perdiccas, who was king of Macedonia at the time of the Persian invasions, destroyed the barbarians who were retreating after their defeat at Plataea and so completed the discomfiture of the Great King, they did not vote him the citizenship, but only gave him immunity from taxes

This is the battle that the wiki entry for Alexander I says takes place at the Strymon. Perdikkas would presumably have been left governing Macedonia  on behalf of his father, and the victory suggests he had an effective army even once the contingent with Mardonios is removed. Herodotos mentions only Thracian attacks.

Justin VII.4 also mentions that

QuoteAlexander enlarged his dominions not less by his own valour than through the munificence of the Persians

which implies successful military campaigns, and thus a successful army.

That would seem to put Alexander I back in the running, if indeed he was ever out of it.

There is a further complication, in that Thucydides appears to offer yet another candidate for the reform.

"These Macedonians, unable to take the field against so numerous an invader, shut themselves up in such strong places and fortresses as the country possessed. Of these there was no great number, most of those now found in the country having been erected subsequently by Archelaus, the son of Perdiccas, on his accession, who also cut straight roads, and otherwise put the kingdom on a better footing as regards horses, heavy infantry [hoplois], and other war material than had been done by all the eight kings that preceded him." - Thucydides II.110.1-2

For Archelaus to be our man, Anaximenes would have to have made a slip of the pen in Matters Philippic, replacing Archelaus with the better-known name Alexander.  'Putting the kingdom on a better footing' might simply mean improving an existing system, which would, if this is how Thucydides' passage should be understood, point in the direction of Alexander I as the originator.

Interestingly Archelaus has been considered in the past whenever people have been looking at the Macedonian army.
He might be a little late for the archaeology, but in the interests of completeness he too was followed by a period of chaos and the Illyrians driving one of his successors out of the country. This sort of thing happening after his reign should put him in the picture even if Thucydides had never written    8)

His eight previous kings comment is intriguing. If it's anything other than a rhetorical flourish he's talking about Perdiccas I or Argaeus I of Macedon at about 650 to 700BC

I believe Archelaos has indeed been suggested as the subject of the Suda anecdote, assuming a copyist's corruption - "It's a Macedonian king who reformed an army, begins with A, Arche- who?, nah, must mean Alexander".

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2018, 07:19:35 PM... Archelaus, the son of Perdiccas, on his accession, who also cut straight roads, and otherwise put the kingdom on a better footing as regards horses, heavy infantry [hoplois], and other war material than had been done by all the eight kings that preceded him."[/color] - Thucydides II.110.(sic - it's 100) 1-2

I would not, despite Dutton's translation, read heavy infantry into that passage, but take hoplois literally as "arms" - Thucydides is listing materiel not personnel - "horses, arms, and other equipment".

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 08, 2018, 10:10:28 PM
I believe Archelaos has indeed been suggested as the subject of the Suda anecdote, assuming a copyist's corruption - "It's a Macedonian king who reformed an army, begins with A, Arche- who?, nah, must mean Alexander".

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 08, 2018, 07:19:35 PM... Archelaus, the son of Perdiccas, on his accession, who also cut straight roads, and otherwise put the kingdom on a better footing as regards horses, heavy infantry [hoplois], and other war material than had been done by all the eight kings that preceded him."[/color] - Thucydides II.110.(sic - it's 100) 1-2

I would not, despite Dutton's translation, read heavy infantry into that passage, but take hoplois literally as "arms" - Thucydides is listing materiel not personnel - "horses, arms, and other equipment".

indeed if you take the arms and other equipment, it might mean that he finally got round to equipping properly the pezetairoi  Alexander had created. But my comment is pure speculation  :-[

Thank you, gentlemen: I am learning. :)

I think Duncan is right about hoplois being 'arms'; I would have expected hoplites for heavy infantry but Suda writers may have had their own peculiarities.  The context, however, of 'horses, hoplois and other materials of war' (or 'equipment') does point to the means rather than the men who used them.  The question this leaves us is whether this accompanies a reform or simply upgrades a previous reform.

It looks as if we may be justified in dropping Alexander II and having the final run-off between Alexander I and Archelaus.  Would this seem reasonable?

And if so, can anyone think of a tie-breaker?

It seems to me there are at least five components to the Macedonian infantry reforms:

- training (drill, exercises etc)
- renaming ('Foot Companions')
- reorganising (whether dekads or not, but formal organisation)
- centralised equipment
- new equipment (whether 'Iphicratean peltast', or 'pelta and sarisa', or 'aspis and sarisa' - at any rate, something that created a 'phalanx armed in the Macedonian fashion', rather than just a phalanx of Macedonians).

These reforms need not have all happened just once, or all at the same time (though often they are conflated - this is Christopher Matthew's mistake IMHO).

So we have:

Thucydides: Archelaus provided centralised equipment
Anaximenes via Demosthenes via Suda:  Alexander (unknown which) renamed and reorganised
Diodorus: Philip II trained and perhaps reorganised and probably created the new equipment (centralised?)

As I understand it, Juhel argues for Alexander I reorganising and renaming, but not equipping 'in the Macedonian fashion' (in fact he seems to date that after Alexander III, if I understand correctly).

It seems to me that there could have been several reforms of varying degrees of importance, success and durability, and there's no need (or possibility) of pinning them down to s single reform under a single king. I'm inclined to believe the only really important one is the 'arming in the Macedonian fashion' one, and that happened under Philip II.

My feeling is that Juhel has made a good case for Alexander I creating a state-equipped and organized hoplite force.  I'm impressed by the way that several lines of historical, archaeological and numismatic evidence seem to come together:

- Long and successful reign expanding the kingdom,
- The Persian-style dekas,
- Change in burial practices,
- Illyrian-helmeted "military" coinage,
- Simplification of manufacture of helmets(*).

(*) This is a point for which Juhel is citing others' work, so I can't really assess how true it is.

Even if the Suda passage does not refer to Alexander I, it would be likely that the dekas was introduced under Persian influence in his reign and survived as the basic Macedonian sub-unit to be re-used by whichever later king founded the foot-companions, so the idea of Alexander I as founder of an organized hoplite force could even survive the loss of the Suda identification.

Quote from: Duncan Head on May 09, 2018, 10:10:54 AM
My feeling is that Juhel has made a good case for Alexander I creating a state-equipped and organized hoplite force.  I'm impressed by the way that several lines of historical, archaeological and numismatic evidence seem to come together:

- Long and successful reign expanding the kingdom,
- The Persian-style dekas,
- Change in burial practices,
- Illyrian-helmeted "military" coinage,
- Simplification of manufacture of helmets(*).

(*) This is a point for which Juhel is citing others' work, so I can't really assess how true it is.

Even if the Suda passage does not refer to Alexander I, it would be likely that the dekas was introduced under Persian influence in his reign and survived as the basic Macedonian sub-unit to be re-used by whichever later king founded the foot-companions, so the idea of Alexander I as founder of an organized hoplite force could even survive the loss of the Suda identification.

I like the way the archaeology, coinage and suchlike all come together

Yes I can go with that - so we might have:

Archelaus - improved central supply of equipment
Alexander I - created a state-equipped and organized hoplite force, which he named 'Foot Companions'
Philip II - re-armed the Foot Companions 'in the Macedonian fashion'

Others (like Alexander II) might have tinkered too, but without lasting impact. Though I'm just reading Juhel (Autors de l'Infanterie) now so should really keep quiet till I've done so...

I'll go back and reread An Invincible Beast for the alternate viewpoint (Alex 2) but so far am liking the logical and synergistic reasons for Alex 1

Incidentally I'm not totally convinced that dekas = Achaemenid - there's a Homeric precedent too (for example Iliad 2.124-129 "For should we be minded, both Achaeans and Trojans, to swear a solemn oath with sacrifice, and to number ourselves, and should the Trojans be gathered together, even all they that have dwellings in the city, and we Achaeans be marshalled by tens, and choose, each company of us, a man of the Trojans to pour our wine, then would many tens lack a cup-bearer; so far, I deem, do the sons of the Achaeans outnumber the Trojans that dwell in the city."

Not that that need alter the Alexander I argument, just a passing thought.