Who invented the chiliarch?

[Dave Beatty]

I'm in the midst of writing a paper and am comparing Greek and Roman military terms.  I'm having a bit of a time tracing how far back some terms go...

Any idea where the first use of chiliarch might be? Apparently the Spartans did not use it.

Along those lines, I thought that Alexander the Great's army was organized in files of 16 men called a lochos and commanded by a lochagos. 16 lochoi made up a syntagma or speira of 256 men commanded by a syntagmatarch. Six syntagmata formed a taxis of 1,536 men commanded by a strategos. Six taxeis formed a phalanx of 9216 under a phalangiarch.

But I am running across chiliarch apparently used by the Hypaspists - presumably this would be four syntagmata rather than six?

And it is my understanding that a hekatontarch was created around 150 BC and commanded half a syntagma in an attempt to counter the tactical flexibility of the Roman legion which reduced the phalangarkhia to 4608.

Thoughts?

Dave

[Duncan Head]

The "1500-man taxis" is a construct  of modern scholars' arithmetic that may not be all that well founded - see http://lukeuedasarson.com/GranicusNotes.html

I am not sure who first used chiliarchos, but it may be a translation of the Persian (and hence go back to earlier Near Eastern systems, maybe? What's the Akkadian for chiliarch?). The Persians used a decimal organization with thousand-man units and also seemed to have originated the use of "chiliarchos" as a title for a senior official, a "grand vizier" - perhaps because the job went along with command of the senior thousand spear-bearers. The LSJ suggest that the first use is in Aischylos' Persai - see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xiliarxos&la=greek#lexicon - you might want to look into whether Herodotos uses the word as well.

[Patrick Waterson]

First use of 'chiliarch' seems to be Xenophon in the Cyropaedia (quite a few times, starting with II.1.23) and in Economics 4.7.

See here for a complete listing.

Apparently Greek authors rendered the Persian hazahrapatish as chiliarchos, the hazahrapatish being the commander of the melophoroi, the 1,000-strong bodyguard of Persian kings, hence the use of 'chiliarch' as a high rank in addition to its use to signify commander of 1,000.

But I am running across chiliarch apparently used by the Hypaspists - presumably this would be four syntagmata rather than six?

The hypaspists have traditionally been assumed to have operated in three 'chiliarchies' of 1,024 men each, perhaps for increased flexibility.  By the time of the 'Silver Shields' close to Alexander's death it is possible they had been expanded to four chiliarchies but this is an inferred possibility without clear evidence.  Either way, yes, four syntagmata.

What is interesting about Alexander's army is that his heavy infantry may have been organised on a 'triangular' basis: teloi of 1,536 men (three 512-man pentekosiarchies) for the phalanx and a super-telos of 3,072 men (three 1,024-men chiliarchies) for the hypaspists.  Alex may have reorganised them into what would later be the standard Hellenistic arrangement by the end of his reign, giving a 'square' basis of four 512-man pentekosiarchies and a 2,048-man telos, with the hypaspists reforming into four chiliarchies grouped into two teloi (see Alex's cavalry reforms for a rough mounted analogy).  Luke Ueda-Sarson has perceptively picked up on the latter possibility but apparently without allowing for the former.

As Duncan points out, the original organisation is largely inferred from an initial heavy infantry total of 12,000 as opposed to imbibed directly from a source.  I think there is something to the traditional 'triangular' view and that it is probably not a good idea to read later hellenistic organisation back into the beginning of Alexander's career, although he may have arranged something like it in the final years of his life.

What's the Akkadian for chiliarch?

The nearest I can get is rab-limmu, 'commander of one thousand', or rab-mugi, his cavalry/chariot equivalent.

[Dave Beatty]

Brilliant, many thanks.

I suspected it had something to do with contact with Persia based upon their use of the decimal system for unit organization.... which offers a tantalizing idea for a totally different article having to do with the Greek base 8 system of army organization compared to the Persian base 10 ("Bits, Bytes and the Grand Vizier"?  )
Dave

[Dave Beatty]

PS thanks Duncan for the pointer to the Perseus word frequency search engine! That is most useful.
Dave

[Duncan Head]

First use of 'chiliarch' seems to be Xenophon in the Cyropaedia (quite a few times, starting with II.1.23) and in Economics 4.7.

The Aischylos reference is before Xenophon. Both, of course, suggest a Persian origin.

As Duncan points out, the original organisation is largely inferred from an initial heavy infantry total of 12,000 as opposed to imbibed directly from a source.  I think there is something to the traditional 'triangular' view and that it is probably not a good idea to read later hellenistic organisation back into the beginning of Alexander's career, although he may have arranged something like it in the final years of his life.

I on the other hand am tentatively quite taken with Luke's suggestion, at least the "2,000-man taxis" part of it - less certain about the hypaspists. The "taxis of 1,500" simply doesn't work unless you assume that there are no Macedonian infantry at all left over from Philip's advance force t be accounted for. For Dave's purposes, though, the main point is simply that there is a degree of uncertainty.

[Patrick Waterson]

The "taxis of 1,500" simply doesn't work unless you assume that there are no Macedonian infantry at all left over from Philip's advance force to be accounted for. For Dave's purposes, though, the main point is simply that there is a degree of uncertainty.

The composition of Philip's advance force is itself not crystal clear.  One might even wonder if it consisted mainly of mercenaries - an expensive proposition, but affordable, given Philip's resources - and/or Greeks from the various cities.

"The Greeks elected him the general plenipotentiary of Greece, and he began accumulating supplies for the campaign. He prescribed the number of soldiers that each city should send for the joint effort, and then returned to Macedonia." - Diodorus XV.89.3

During the first year of Alexander's reign, he would presumably have felt the need for every Macedonian soldier he could lay his hands on, so if any were in Asia one would expect them to have been recalled.  Greek allies and mercenaries however would be encouraged to remain there, as recalling them could create more problems - especially relating to loyalty - than letting them run around amusing themselves in enemy territory.

Alexander's force, once he had entered Asia and "proceeded to make an accurate count of his accompanying forces" is given by Diodorus as:

"There were found to be, of infantry, twelve thousand Macedonians, seven thousand allies, and five thousand mercenaries, all of whom were under the command of Parmenion.  Odrysians, Triballians, and Illyrians accompanied him to the number of seven thousand; and of archers and the so‑called Agrianians one thousand, making up a total of thirty-two thousand foot soldiers." - idem XVII.17.3-4

A notable omission from Alexander's Granicus campaign (in all accounts) is any suggestion that he linked up with a force previously present, other than the fact that Diodorus' count was taken after, not before, crossing into Asia and that the crossing was supervised by Parmenio.  Reading between the lines, my favoured interpretation out of several possibilities is that the advance force met up with the main army at or near the landing site and is included in Diodorus' figures, probably contributing most of the 'seven thousand allies and five thousand mercenaries' under the command of Parmenio.

This would leave the figure of 12,000 'Macedonians' to cover the hypaspists and phalangites and hence support, if only by inference, the traditional triangular interpretation for Alexandrian phalanx organisation.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Today at 11:21:42 AM

   

First use of 'chiliarch' seems to be Xenophon in the Cyropaedia (quite a few times, starting with II.1.23) and in Economics 4.7.

The Aischylos reference is before Xenophon. Both, of course, suggest a Persian origin.

Well spotted - I missed Aeschylus, whose reference may be to the chiliarch (he is mentioned second in the list of deceased notables) as opposed to an ordinary commander of ten times a hundred.

[Duncan Head]

The "taxis of 1,500" simply doesn't work unless you assume that there are no Macedonian infantry at all left over from Philip's advance force to be accounted for. For Dave's purposes, though, the main point is simply that there is a degree of uncertainty.

The composition of Philip's advance force is itself not crystal clear.  One might even wonder if it consisted mainly of mercenaries - an expensive proposition, but affordable, given Philip's resources - and/or Greeks from the various cities.

We have one reference to the composition of the advance force:

Later Callas with a mixed force of Macedonians and mercenaries joined battle in the Troad against a much larger force of Persians and, finding himself inferior, fell back on the promontory of Rhoeteium.

So there were certainly some Macedonians in Asia before Alexander arrived.

When Memnon advanced against Cyzicus, he put a Macedonian cap upon his head, and made all his army do the same. The generals of Cyzicus, observing their appearance from the walls, supposed that Chalcus the Macedonian, their friend and ally, was marching to their assistance with a body of troops; and opened their gates to receive him. However they discovered their error just soon enough to correct it, and shut their gates against him; Memnon had to content himself with ravaging their country

The ruse wouldn't work unless a large proportion of the Macedonian advance force could be expected to wear Macedonian kausiai, which seem to have been a Macedonian ethnic marker.

[Jim Webster]

I remember reading a book on the Viking ship where the author commented that when you read the 19th and 20th century books on the topic, the Vikings seemed to be keeping up with the fashions in yachting of the day. Whenever a new fashion came along, somebody would point to his theoretical reconstruction of the long ship and show how the Vikings had been a thousand years ahead of the fashion   

On niggle at the back of my mind is that in the early part of the 20th century the 'west' swapped over from the 'square' division of two brigades each with two regiments, to the triangular division of three brigades.

I'm not saying that it did have an impact on the debate, but it's something to keep in mind

[Patrick Waterson]

We have one reference to the composition of the advance force:

Later Callas with a mixed force of Macedonians and mercenaries joined battle in the Troad against a much larger force of Persians and, finding himself inferior, fell back on the promontory of Rhoeteium.

So there were certainly some Macedonians in Asia before Alexander arrived.

When Memnon advanced against Cyzicus, he put a Macedonian cap upon his head, and made all his army do the same. The generals of Cyzicus, observing their appearance from the walls, supposed that Chalcus the Macedonian, their friend and ally, was marching to their assistance with a body of troops; and opened their gates to receive him. However they discovered their error just soon enough to correct it, and shut their gates against him; Memnon had to content himself with ravaging their country

The ruse wouldn't work unless a large proportion of the Macedonian advance force could be expected to wear Macedonian kausiai, which seem to have been a Macedonian ethnic marker.

Yes, that makes eminent sense, although the question of whether (as I consider highly likely) the Macedonians would have been recalled for Alexander's earlier campaigns still stands.  Callas' 'mixed force of Macedonians and mercenaries' is explicit, while Alexander's OB in Diodorus XVII.17.3-4 has 5,000 mercenaries.  If these are the same mercenaries as took part in Callas' campaign, then it is quite conceivable that Callas also had around 5,000 Macedonians under command.  This logically gives us the following options:

These 5,000 Macedonians were already in Asia and Alexander added 7,000 brought from Macedonia, giving Diodorus' 12,000.

These 5,000 Macedonians had been recalled for Alexander's Illyrian and Theban campaigns and now recrossed with him, giving us Diodorus' 12,000.

Either way, I do not see that we need anything other than 3,000 hypaspists in three 1,024-man chiliarchies and 6 phalanxes of 1,536 men each.

Antipater's forces ("The soldiers who were left behind in Europe under the command of Antipater numbered twelve thousand foot and fifteen hundred horse." - Diodorus XVII.17.5) seem neutral in the organisational discussion: six lots of 2,000 or eight lots of 1,500 would make up the sum.  Alexander however had the hypaspists and as far as we know Antipater had none.

The real question concerns the hypaspists: Arrian simply gives us 'the agema and the other hypaspists', which the JR Hamilton translation occasionally extends to 'the three battalions of hypaspists', which would be decisive were there actually any basis for it in the Greek.  However with six named phalanx commanders at the Granicus, and hence six phalanxes, our options are a bit limited, which is why traditionally it has been assumed that the six phalanxes were of identical size and thus they have to be of 1,536 men each in order to fit within the 12,000-man total and still leave room for some hypaspists, which puts the hypaspists at around 3,000 men total.  Incidental information (which I crib from Luke's website) helps us toward this conclusion: post-Gaugamela, the hypaspists are said by Curtius to have included 2 chiliarchies (units of 1000) plus the royal battalion, which was presumably the same strength, since after Alexander's death the number of the Argyraspids, the renamed hypaspists, is recorded as 3000 (Diodoros, XVIII.58.1), and that the hypaspists could be divided into thirds (Arrian, IV.24.10, who records 2 chiliarchs of the hypaspists at IV.30.5, but commanding three chiliarchies).  To my mind, there really is no reason to discard the traditional hypaspist organisation of three 1,024-man chiliarchies.

Luke Ueda-Sarson's argument for Alexander using the later Hellenistic organisation really hinges upon the assumption that we can add the 10,000-man advance force to Diodorus' XVII.17.3-4 composition.  I see nothing that would cause us to want to do so: the fact that Alexander took his count after crossing into Asia seems to me indicative that he compiled it after, not before, joining up with such troops as were already there.

Anyway, Dave, there you have it: as Duncan says, it is probably enough to say that there is some uncertainty about the matter, but if you want to go into details we have aired a few.

On niggle at the back of my mind is that in the early part of the 20th century the 'west' swapped over from the 'square' division of two brigades each with two regiments, to the triangular division of three brigades.

This does indicate that organisations can change, and within a fairly short space of time, with pressure of war being the main stimulus (the Russians in particular had wanted to move to a triangular division on the basis of their 1904-5 war experience but peacetime lack of funding and bureaucratic inertia left the old organisation in place by default).  Come WW1 and everyone except the Bulgarians and Americans made the shift.  Agreed this does not directly bear upon the Macedonian army except to illustrate that organisations need not be set in stone throughout a culture's history and that extrapolating backwards may not always be a reliable guide to organisation.

[Duncan Head]

OK, my final shot in reply to Patrick's final shot:

Diodoros' figures for when Alexander "proceeded to make an accurate count" in the Troad total 32,000 infantry. Arrian (I.xi) says that he marched through Thrace with "not much more than 30,000 infantry" - so this is a figure from before he crossed the Hellespont. The numbers match closely enough for one to be a rounding of the other, and for the Diodoran muster to be precisely the force that Arrian says Alex brought across from Europe, not including any troops already in Asia. You might argue for the army having been joined between crossing and muster by something fewer than 2,000 survivors of the advance guard, but only by a very strict interpretation of "not much more than"!

To take another tack, Plutarch says that the lowest figure given in any authority for the army "with which he crossed the Hellespont" was 30,000 foot, the highest 43,000. So no ancient source suggests fewer than 30,000 foot made the crossing with the King; 32,000 soon reinforced by the survivors of a 10,000-man expedition would comfortably account for the whole range of figures given.

And just finally to note that the suggestion that there were more than 12,000 Macedonian infantry by the time that we hear of six taxeis at Granicus is not Luke's brainwave alone: A B Bosworth in Conquest and Empire (1988; p.259) estimates that "After Alexander crossed the Hellespont the total of his Macedonian infantry was around 15,000".

[Patrick Waterson]

OK, my final shot in reply to Patrick's final shot:

Diodoros' figures for when Alexander "proceeded to make an accurate count" in the Troad total 32,000 infantry. Arrian (I.xi) says that he marched through Thrace with "not much more than 30,000 infantry" - so this is a figure from before he crossed the Hellespont. The numbers match closely enough for one to be a rounding of the other, and for the Diodoran muster to be precisely the force that Arrian says Alex brought across from Europe, not including any troops already in Asia. You might argue for the army having been joined between crossing and muster by something fewer than 2,000 survivors of the advance guard, but only by a very strict interpretation of "not much more than"!

Ummm ... very briefly, as these were supposed to be wrap-up posts, we might note that Arrian does indeed have Alex take c.30,000 infantry with him before he crossed, but he crossed with 'most of' (actually 'many of') them, not all of them - men dē tōn te pezōn tous pollous (I.11.6) - and one wonders why Arrian does not specify the whole infantry contingent as crossing: did Alex wish to leave a garrison at his crossing point, for example, or were some infantry used to man ships in his fleet?.  Whatever the reason, if Arrian is correct that 'many of' the infantry crossed as opposed to all of them, it allows some to be left behind and Diodorus to provide the same total (32,000) following the absorption of the assumed advance guard.

To take another tack, Plutarch says that the lowest figure given in any authority for the army "with which he crossed the Hellespont" was 30,000 foot, the highest 43,000. So no ancient source suggests fewer than 30,000 foot made the crossing with the King; 32,000 soon reinforced by the survivors of a 10,000-man expedition would comfortably account for the whole range of figures given.

Again, a subtraction at the point of crossing (say to man the fleet on an enduring basis) followed by the addition of an advance force immediately after the crossing and before Diodorus' count would also balance the equation and account for the difference in numbers.  Raising the c.30,000 to a subsequent 43,000 by later incorporation of an advance force hits the problem that none of our sources mention or allude to any such rendezvous.  Granted they also do not explicitly mention the detachment of some men and incorporation of others at the time of the crossing, but they seem to have been more focussed on the totals for the impending Granicus battle and the lack of any link-up manoeuvring after the crossing is very noticeable.

And just finally to note that the suggestion that there were more than 12,000 Macedonian infantry by the time that we hear of six taxeis at Granicus is not Luke's brainwave alone: A B Bosworth in Conquest and Empire (1988; p.259) estimates that "After Alexander crossed the Hellespont the total of his Macedonian infantry was around 15,000".

Does Bosworth have a basis for this estimate?

[Duncan Head]

Does Bosworth have a basis for this estimate?

I think you can find the page on Google Books, but basically it's just the presence of the advance force - no new passages that we haven't found yet.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Duncan: I shall give the subject a rest now.