In Search of the Lost Testament of Alexander the Great

by David Grant

  56.Following Anson (2013) p 44 for the increase in cavalry numbers.

  57.Quoting Lane Fox (2011) p 377 for ‘blueprint of Hellenistic warfare’.

  58.Tarn (1948) pp 138-139 for the origins of the Companion Cavalry. Sekunda (1984) p 5 for 600 in number originally. Arrian 6.21.3 seems to have used the term Close Companion as the elite corps of the Companion Cavalry, thus the royal agema as per Arrian 4.24.1. The numbers given by Diodorus 17.17.4 and Arrian 6.14.4 suggest the royal squadron was doubled in size and later possibly trimmed at 300; Eumenes and Antigonus had units of 300 with them at Paraetacenae; Diodorus 19.29.5, 19.28.3. The purple cloaks suggested by the Alexander Sarcophagus and Diodorus 17.77.5; discussed in Sekunda (1984) p 17. Arrian 1.14.6, 1.28.3, 5.13.4 for the suggestion of ‘daily’ positions of command; following Hatzopoulos (1996) p 244 for the observation. ‘Upper class’ was a term attached to cavalry under Alexander by Anaximenes of Lampsacus; FGrH 72 F 4.

  59.Arrian 4.24.1 and 4.24.2 for ilai making 1 hipparchaia. Arrian 6.27.6 and 7.24.4 for hekatostyes. Sekunda (1984) p 31 for the infantry reforms in Asia and B Bosworth in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 94-102 for hekatostyes and lochoi. Anaximenes FGrH 72 F4 from Harpocration’s Lexikon.

  60.Markle (1977) proposed 120-men wedges and discussed in Gabriel (2010) p 219 though Sekunda (1984) p 14 refers to Aelian Tacticus for forty-nine men. Aelian Tacticus 39.2-6 credited Philip with the development of the wedge; this probably means ‘refinement’. Arrian 3.18.5 mentioned a tetrarchia of cavalry. The tetrarchia discussed in Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 453.

  61.Aelian Tacticus 18.2-4, Asclepiodotus Tactics 7.2-3 and 7.6.7 for the wedge development by the Scythians and Thracians and Jason’s development of the diamond formation. Devine (1983) for the origins of the wedge infantry and cavalry formation in detail and Lenden (2005) pp 98-102 for the Rhombus formation and its advantages.

  62.Arrian Tekhne Taktika 16.6 ff for the wedge formation adopted by Philip, cited in Gabriel (2010) pp 76-77, and Markle (1977) p 339. Gabrielson (1990) pp 84-85 for discussion of Alexander’s cavalry action at Chaeronea.

  63.Hammond (1994) pp 148-150 and Gabriel 2010 pp 214-222 for in depth analysis of the battle. Green (1974) p 74 for Athens’ inactivity.

  64.Pynknosis is an ‘intermediary’ compactness in which phalangites were separated by perhaps 3 feet and synaspismos represented a more closely packed order.

  65.Diodorus 16.3.2 and Iliad 13.131 ff for the compacted ranks at Troy; see the discussion in Lenden (2005) p 11. Hector’s spear was described in the Iliad 6 as 11 cubits (16 feet) long and held with both hands. The Iliad’s allusion of peltast-styled fighting discussed in Lenden (2005) pp 96-97.

  66.Anson (2013) p 47 for the Thracian thrusting spear. The relative shortness of the Spartan sword discussed in Anderson (1970) p 38; they carried spears of course as well. Snodgrass (1967) p 110 and p 127 for Iphicrates’ military reforms based on Diodorus 15.44.4, Nepos Iphicrates 1.3-4 where it was claimed that Iphicrates doubled the length of spears; Diodorus 15.44.3 stated they were extended by half their length. Also Anderson (1970) pp 130-131 for Iphicrates’ lengthening weapons and the rationale.

  67.Plutarch Comparison of Pelopidas with Marcellus. Devine (1983) p 204 for Epaminondas’ infantry wedge used at Leuctra. Plutarch Pelopidas 26.3 for his arbitration in Macedonia. Justin 7.5 for Epaminondas being an ‘eminent’ philosopher.

  68.AB Bosworth in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 99 for Alexander II’s friendship with Pelopidas. Diodorus 16.2.1-4 for Philip being handed to the Thebans by the Illyrians with whom he had been a child hostage and being schooled with Epaminondas under a Pythagorean teacher. Following Diodorus 16.2.2, Loeb Classical Library edition, 1952, footnote 4: since Philip was born ca. 383 BCE he was an infant when given to the Illyrians. Justin 7.5.1 stated that Philip was ransomed by Alexander II and later sent by him as a hostage to Thebes. However at Diodorus 15.67.4 likewise has Alexander II sending him to Thebes, as does Plutarch Pelopidas 26.4. Some modern historians agree that Ptolemy of Alorus, paramour and later husband of Eurydice, the widow of Amyntas III, was the monarch who sent Philip to Thebes, basing their account on Aeschines False Embassy, 2.26 ff, which placed Philip at the court of Ptolemy. Pelopidas who had already driven the Macedonian garrisons installed by Alexander II from Thessaly, was called in to arbitrate (Plutarch Pelopidas 26.3, Diodorus 16.67.4) and he may have demanded hostages for good behaviour, including Philip II. Philip, aged fourteen or fifteen, was probably in Thebes throughout 368‑365 BCE. See discussion by Hammond (1991) p 58 and Hammond (1980) pp 53-63. Plutarch Pelopidas 26.5 termed Philip an ‘emulator’ of Epaminondas with whom he was said to be educated by a Pythagorean; this conflicts with the claim that Philip lodged in the house of Pammenes (Plutarch Pelopidas 26.5, Diodorus 15.94.2, 16.34.1-2) and Epaminondas was surely too old to have been educated with Philip. Diodorus 15.39.2 for Epaminondas’ education. See discussion in Billows (1990) p 30. Many scholars reject this and claim Philip was too young in his hostage period to have been significantly influenced; full discussion in Hammond (1997). Justin 8.5.1-3 for Philip’s hostage time with the Illyrians. Diodorus 18.86.5 for the overall numbers of dead and captured at Chaeronea.

  69.Polyaenus 4.2.10 for the forced marches of Philip and Frontinus 4.1.6 for the rations; Heckel-Jones (2006) p 12 for discussion. Frontinus 4.1.6 for the waggonless army; discussion in Gabriel (2010) pp 85-86. Frontinus 4.2.4 and Aelian 14.48 for flogging and execution; Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 451 for discussion. The oracle at Trophonius in Boeotia warned Philip to be on his guard against a chariot; he avoided them thereafter; Aelian 3.45.

  70.Plato Laches 181-183d for an example of the demonstration of the hoplomachia; discussed in Hanson (1991) p 29.

  71.Confusion stems from the Roman-inspired ‘cohors’ (a cohort, but here perhaps a chiliarchia). Latin sources further complicate our understanding of battle order with units and commands labelled armiger and custos, as well as corporis for the bodyguard corps of nobles (perhaps 200; royal hypaspists, or former royal pages) and the seven elite members of the hypaspistai basilikoi, the king’s Somatophylakes. Heckel Somatophylakes (1978) p 224, Sekunda (1984) p 9 for the Latin derivatives associated with the corps of perhaps 200. Curtius 3.12.3 for cohors. Curtius 4.21.9 mentioned a body of 700 bodyguards. Curtius 5.2.3-5 for nine chiliarchs being appointed. Devine (1983) p 206 for the terms relating to infantry formations. Arrian 1.11.7-8 suggested the hypaspists carried the king’s weapons, taken from Troy, into battle; as Peucestas allegedly carried the shield from Troy at Mallia, then he is credibly a former royal hypaspist of perhaps 200 elites.

  72.Theopompus FGrH 115 F 348 and Diodorus 16.93.1 for references to Philip’s doryphoroi. A summary of the arguments on the panoply of the king’s guard in Anson (2013) pp 50-51 and by Anson in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 81-90; p 81 for shield sizes. The term hypaspists may be alternatively used for ‘armour-bearer’ or ‘esquire’; see Milns (1971) p 186. Their attested mobility on long forced marches suggests they might have been more lightly armed than the rest of the phalanx; their activities detailed at Arrian 1.27.8, 2.4.3, 3.23.3, 4.28.8; Milns (1971) pp 187-188 for discussion of armour and equipment and Heckel-Jones (2006) pp 17-18. The hypaspists seem to have numbered 1,000 under Philip in an army of 10,000 infantry and were expanded to 3,000 under Alexander when he left for Asia; he had 12,000 infantry in total, 9,000 of which were pikemen; discussion in Anson (1985) p 248 and Heckel-Jones (200) pp 30-31. Arrian 1.11.8 stated the hypaspists carried Alexander’s sacred shield from Troy into battle; hardly a role for anyone but a hoplite-equipped infantryman.

  73.Anson (2004) pp 227 and 229 for the possible, or misunderstood, expansion of the hetairos relationship outside of these elite units. We do not read of Philip in cavalry units and he may well have preferred an infantry position for himself. Hammond (1991) p 44 for the military reforms of Alexander II.

  74.Theopompus FGRH 115 F-225 for the number at 800; discussed in Hatzopoulos (1996) p 29 and Anson (2004) p 228. The number 3,000 was possi
bly later raised to 4,000 (as per Berve) and as suggested in Curtius 5.1.40 and Arrian 3.16.10. Milns (1971) argues against this.

  75.Pausanias 1.21.7; the limited use of linen discussed in Anderson (1970) p 23.

  76.Plutarch Pelopidas 2 for Iphicrates’ hoplite reforms. Aeschines On the Embassy 2.28 claimed Eurydice placed her two surviving sons in Iphicrates’ arms when pleading for his support as her stepson.

  77.Anson (1988) summarises the arguments about the origin of the Silver Shields, whether it was shortly after the Macedonians returned from India or early in the Successor Wars; at Diodorus 19.28.1 and 19.40.3 they are mentioned as distinct from hypaspist units. Curtius 8.5.4 and Justin 12.7.4 suggested Alexander’s fighting force was adorned with precious ornaments and shields plated with silver as they entered India, i.e. after capturing the Achaemenid treasuries. Also Tarn (1948) p 116 ff and pp 151-152 for the origins of the unit. Tarn’s contention was that Argyraspides, first mentioned at the battle of Gaugamela, was simply the elite agema of the hypaspists renamed by Hieronymus who misled later historians. He likewise sees this as proof that Curtius used Diodorus. Diodorus 18.57.2 stated they were distinguished because of the brilliance of their armour. Confusion is thrown in by the mention at Arrian 7.11.13 of a Persian Argyraspides regiment and earlier mention of the Silver Shields at Gaugamela at Diodorus 17.57.2 and Curtius 4.13.27, yet by then considerable wealth had already been captured from Darius’ baggage train at Issus and Damascus. The identification may have additionally been retrospective by historians, as it seems the regiment was renamed during the Indian campaign; see discussion in Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 455. Sekunda (2012) pp18-19 for varying shield sizes found dating to the period.

  78.Diodorus 17.65.4 and Curtius 5.2.2-7 for the Sittacene reorganisations. E Anson in Carney-Ogden (2010) p 93 for the reorganisations at Sittacene.

  79.Diodorus 17.57.2, Curtius 4.13.28 for the upper canton names attached to the infantry battalions. Hammond (1991) p 70 for the size of Philip’s army when he died. Heckel-Jones (2006) p 10 and pp 30-31 for 9,000 pezhetairoi.

  80.Heckel-Jones (2006) p 43 for the arrangement of the phalangites. Curtius 5.2.3 for the suggestion of pentakosiarchos; discussion in Milns (1971) pp 188-189. Hekatostyes discussed by B Bosworth in Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 94-102. Roisman-Worthington (2010) p 448 for the increase in size of dekades and its origins, as well as lochoi used for one hundred infantry.

  81.Hatzopoulos (1996) p 450 for the general use of taxis. Anson (2004) p 215 for examples of regional battalion leaders.

  82.Curtius 5.2.3 for the new commands of 1,000 versus 500.

  83.Heckel-Jones (2006) p 10 and pp 30-31 for 9,000 pezhetairoi and the distinction arguments between them and asthetairoi. Hammond (1994) p 150 along with Bosworth suggests the asthetairoi units were comprised of Upper Macedonians (derived from astya, the towns) where the pezhetairoi came from the old kingdom, i.e. the ancient heartlands. Heckel (1988) p 321 for identity discussion and differing views; Bosworth suggests the title ‘closest companions’. In Carney-Ogden (2010) pp 88-89 Anson suggests the ‘asth’ stood for ‘star’ referring to the star motif on their shields. Their mobility is convincingly argued for and applied at Arrian 4.23.1, 4.218.8. Arrian 2.23.2 and 4.23.1 for examples of ‘Close Companions’. Arrian 2.23.3-4, 3.11.9-12, 3.25.6, 4.23.1 for use and deployment. Whilst an apparent hapax legomenon, as Milns (1981) p 354 points out, six variants of asthetairoi appeared in Arrian Anabasis. Roisman-Worthington (2010) pp 457-458 for the evidence on the Alexander Sarcophagus.

  84.More on the thureophoroi below.

  85.Asthippoi (or amphippoi) appear at Diodorus 19.29.2; the suggestion was that these cavalrymen rode a pair of horses with the rider jumping from one to the other when a mount was exhausted, in the style of the Tarentines who followed Philopoemen; see Livy 35.28.8. Aelian 38.3 was clear that they were nomadic archers who exchanged mounts. Both titles, asthippoi (or amphippoi) and asthetairoi could be Hieronymus-sourced (if Arrian was back-forming names). See Milns (1981) and Hammond Cavalry (1978) for possible identifications and derivation of the name.

  86.Diodorus 17.20.3 stated Alexander carried a shield, and his survival in close action at 17.60.2, Plutarch 16.4, Arrian 1.2.6, when spears were being hurled against him, suggests the same. Anderson (1970) p 113 for Amazon and Scythian cavalry shields.

  87.Hammond Cavalry (1978) and Milns (1981) p 351 for the disappearance of sarissophoroi.

  88.Diodorus 17.17.3-5 for troop numbers crossing to Asia. Following the Loeb Classical Library edition, (1963), 17.17.4 footnote 4: Diodorus is our only source for the detailed troop list of Alexander. Justin 11.6.2 gave 32,000 foot and 4,500 horse; Plutarch 15.1 cited 30,000-43,000 foot and 4,000-5,000 horse; Arrian 1.11.3 stated ‘not much more than’ 30,000 foot and 5,000 horse. Plutarch Moralia 327d-e (De Fortuna aut Virtute Alexandri 1.3) stated Aristobulus stated 30,000 foot and 4,000 horse, Ptolemy 30,000 foot and 5,000 horse, and Anaximenes 43,000 foot and 5,500 horse.

  89.Plutarch Aemilius 19.2 and 20.2 for the ability of the sarissa to penetrate shields and armour. ‘First-strike’ capability quoting Milns (1971) p 188. Plutarch Aemilius and Diodorus 17.84.4 for the shield and armour piercing ability of the sarissa.

  90.The Greek dory had a sharp point at the counterpoint known as a sauroter, literally ‘lizard killer’, or alternatively the sturax or ouricahos (see Hanson (1991) p 71), which anchored the spear securely to the ground and could be used as a secondary blade if, for example, the spear snapped in two or the enemy lay on the ground. Homer Iliad 10.153 for the first reference to the sauroter.

  91.Anson (2013) and Sekunda (2012) pp 15-16 reject cherrywood in favour of the much lighter ash. Theophrastus Enquiry into Plants 3.12.1-2 reported that the male cherry tree grew up to 12 ells (or 12 cubits thus 18 feet) high, the length of the longest sarissa but did not specifically state this wood was used; in fact the shape of the trees and its low split point argues against it, unless the sarissa was assembled in two parts. The Roman Statius stated ash instead. Pliny 16.84 detailed the advantage of using ash being lighter and more pliable than cornel; a contention made by Statius; see Sekunda (2001) for discussion. Homer Iliad 19.390 and 4 47 for references to ash; discussed in Hanson (1991) p 22 ff. For the debate on the length of the sarissa see Sekunda (2012) pp 15-17; also Markle (1997) pp 323-329; Rahe (1981) pp 84-87; Mixter (1992) p 21 ff, Manti (1992) pp 77-91. Hatzopoulos (1996) p 268 states 3.5 to 4.5 metres for the sarissa length. Also see Polybius 18.28 and 31 for a description of the phalanx and lengths of pikes. See full discussion of the longest recorded sarissai in Delbrück (1920) pp 402-406. Polyaenus 2.29.2 stated that by 300 BCE the length had been increased to 16 cubits or 24 feet to 26 feet. Hammond (1991) p 7 for the Tomb II pike-head.

  92.Andronikos (1970) proposed the two-part sarissa construction. Heckel-Jones (2006) p 14 for the iron coupling device.

  93.Curtius 3.2.13.

  94.Polybius 12.19.6 for a description of the thinning formation at the Battle of Issus; discussed in Sekunda (1984) p 23. Javelin throwing using the free right hand suggested by Diodorus 17.100.6-7 and Curtius 917.19-21 though this relies on the evidence in a single hand-to-hand combat; the suggestion is that all pezhetairoi bore javelins but perhaps more practically only the rear uncommitted ranks. Arrian Tactics 5 for the manoeuvre; discussed in Anderson (1970) p 101 ff.

  95.Demosthenes Third Philippic 49. Epikouroi can be broadly interpreted as ‘professional auxiliaries’.

  96.The terror of the sight of the advancing phalanx as reported in Plutarch Aemilius 19.2. Polybius 18.29-30 for a description of the phalanx formation. Arrian 1.1.7-10 for the operation in which carts were rolled down on the Macedonian phalanx which allegedly used shields while lying flat to let the carts pass over, if the ranks could not be parted fast enough.

  97.Sekunda (2012) p 20 for the helmets of the pezhetaroi. Whilst its exact construction method is still debated, the linothorax was mentioned at Herodotus 2.182, 2.529, 2.830, 3.47, 7.63, at Livy 4.19.2-4.20.7 and at Strabo
3.3.6; 13.1.10. ‘Soft’ armour was also known as spolas and could have been a thickly woven tunic, the exomis. Sekunda (1964) p 31 for the half-cuirass. Plutarch Aemilius 19.1-2 for the suggestion (unclear) that shields were slung to the chest when the sarissa phalanx advanced. Polybius 18.30 for the sarissai deflecting missiles.

  98.Snodgrass (1967) p 117 for discussion of the sarissa phalanx armour. Shields were described as 8 hands or approximately 2 feet wide. Heckel-Jones (2006) p 15 for discussion of the pezhetairoi corselets, if any. Polyaenus 4.3.13 did suggest the hemithorakion was issued to those who had fled in battle to make their backs vulnerable. Heckel-Jones (2006) p 17 for the short sword. Sekunda (2012) argues for a handle on the shield rather than a neck strap but this would have put great stress on the left arm when holding the sarissa, as well as being presented at an awkward angle.

  99.Polybius 3.6-7. Agesilaus’ Spartan incursion in Persia is mentioned alongside Xenophon’s march through the Persian Empire. As an example of the Greek bodyguards, four hundred hoplites deserted to Cyrus from the army of Abrocomas, satrap of Phoenicia, as the campaign against Artaxerxes II began. Discussion in Parke (1933) p 26.

  100.For Persian military attire see Herodotus 7.61 and discussion in Cook (1983) pp 101-107. Snodgrass (1967) p 102 for a comparison of the armour of the Greeks and Persians. Arrian 2.8.6 and Strabo 15.3.18 for Cardaces; their descriptions conflict; Tarn (1949) pp 180-182 for discussion.

  101.Curtius 3.3.26-28 for his description of the Persian army and 3.2.13-16 for Charidemus’ description of the Macedonians. Justin 11.13.11 for ‘glittering with gold and silver’. Quoting Arrian 2.7.5 for warlike Europe and lazy effeminate Asia.

  102.Fragment of Mnesimachus’ Philip, translation from Green (1974) p 39.

  103.All the extant accounts confirm otherwise unheard of battle ratios in favour of the Macedonians. Whilst this is certainly an exaggeration, light casualties are a recurring message against heavy enemy losses. As examples, for Issus see Arrian 1.16.2 for Persian cavalry losses, 1.16.4 for Macedonian cavalry losses and 2.11.8 for Persian losses where only mounted troop numbers were mentioned. Compare to Plutarch 20.11-13 and Curtius 3.11.27. For Gaugamela see Arrian 3.15.6; for losses on both sides, Diodorus 17.61.3, Curtius 4.16.26. Pearson (1969) p 156 and footnote 41 for discussion of Arrian’s statement on casualties, relating them to Companions where Aristobulus and Justin claimed these were the total killed.