The Macedonian Background1

G. T. Griffith

doi:10.1017/S0017383500015291

The Macedonian Background1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009

G. T. Griffith

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Macedonia was the springboard of the movement which led to the conquest of the Persian Empire. Though Philip and Alexander ostensibly embarked on war with Persia as Leaders (Hegemones) of the Greeks, and though the Greek cities did make their military and naval contribution—not to mention the comfort and support furnished by certain Greek publicists, intellectuals, and politicians—nevertheless the essential power which had harnessed Greece and now was to harness Persia came from Macedonia and the Macedonians, officially unmentioned, and in many Greek circles unmentionable.

Type: Research Article
Information: Greece & Rome , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , October 1965 , pp. 125 - 139

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383500015291 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 125 note 2} For the geography of Macedonia, see Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace, and Illyria (Oxford, 1926)Google Scholar, chaps, i and ii.

^{page 126 note 1} For a good summary of Macedonia before Philip II, see Hammond, N. G. L., History of Greece (Oxford, 1959), 533 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 2} e.g. Tod 91 and III, with Tod's commentaries for further references.

^{page 126 note 3} Cf. Thuc. i. 142. 5 ff.

^{page 126 note 4} Dem. iv. 34 (? 351 b.c.) . It seems very possible, as Grote, (xi. 424ff.)Google Scholar long ago suggested, that Philip's squadrons at this time derived from his control of Pagasae and Pherae rather than from Macedonia itself.

^{page 127 note 1} Aesch., Persae 238.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 2} D. xvi. 8. 6.

^{page 127 note 3} P. 15; Plut. Moral. 327DGoogle Scholar; A. vii. 9. 6, etc. See in general Berve i. 302.

^{page 127 note 4} The pay of the field army alone at its original strength would cost nearly 3,000 talents a year. On outlay in general, and sources of income, Berve, , i. 304 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 5} P. II, for the unrest on Philip's death both in Greece and in the north, which Alexander's drastic military operations in 335 were designed to suppress.

^{page 127 note 6} Bellinger, A. R., Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the Great (New York, 1963), 11ffGoogle Scholar. and especially 44.

^{page 128 note 1} C. iii. I. 20 (600 talents); A. iii. 16. 10 (out of 3,000 talents, ‘as much as Antipater might need for the war’).

^{page 128 note 2} Anaximenes, (F. Gr. Hist. no, 72) F. 4Google Scholar:. D. xvi. 3. I ff.

^{page 128 note 3} Thuc. iv. 124. I.

^{page 128 note 4} Proc. Cambr. Philol. Soc. N.S. 4 (1956), 3 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 1} A. iii. 16. ii κατὰ ἒθνη; D. xvii. 57. 2. On ‘cities’ in Macedonia, Kahrstedt, U., Hermes lxxxi (1953), 85ff.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 2} D. xvi. 2. 5; 4. 3; 8. 1.

^{page 129 note 3} D. xvi. 35. 4–5 (Thessaly); 74. 5 (Perinthus); 85. 5 (Chaeronea).

^{page 129 note 4} D. xvii. 17. 3 and 5. For full discussion of this ‘army list’ of D., in which the figures for component units do not add up to agree with his recorded total, see P. A. Brunt (art. cit. at p. 132, note 2), who concludes that these figures for Macedonians are reliable, but that allowance should be made also for some Macedonians including cavalry (prodromoi) already in Asia before Alexander invaded.

^{page 130 note 1} On this campaign see E. Badian, in an article which he has kindly allowed me to see, forthcoming in op. cit. p. 166, n. 3.

^{page 130 note 2} Brunt, P. A., JHS lxxxiii (1963), 27–46CrossRef Google Scholar, especially 34 ff.

^{page 130 note 3} Europe: D. xviii. 12. 2; (14. 2?); 14. 5 (cf. 15. 1–4); 16. 4–5, Asia: C. x. 2. 8 (see next note); D. xviii. 7. 3; 16. 1–3; 29. I ff.; 36. 2 ff.

^{page 130 note 4} Cf. Brunt, ibid. 37 ff. A calculation of Macedonian losses in Asia can only be approximate, and can vary widely according (among other things) to the interpretation put on C. x. 2. 8 (with ibid. 19). I agree with Brunt that when C. mentions the figure of 13,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry as comprising the modico exercitu with which Alexander thought he could now hold Asia, the veterans having been demobilized, he must mean 15,000 Macedonians (since he had Asiatic troops available in any numbers that he chose to levy). In the context it seems that C. certainly thought of the 15,000 as survivors of the campaigns, and this is how I take it. But if C. by some confusion is including in the 15,000 the reinforcements then expected from Macedonia within the year, or if (as Brunt suggests) the 15,000 is the number of these reinforcements themselves, then the number of the survivors must be rather small, and the number of the casualties correspondingly increased.

D., however (xviii. 16. 4), records that 6,000 of the Macedonian infantry who had invaded Asia originally with Alexander were among the veterans brought home by Craterus in 322. Whether they were all the survivors he does not say, but probably we are safe in thinking they were all or nearly all: casualties, then, will have been 5,000–6,000 out of 12,000. The other Macedonian infantry which joined Alexander later amounted, we think, to about 17,000 (Brunt, 's Table, loc. cit., 39Google Scholar: excluding Curtius' above-mentioned 13,000, who, if they were the latest reinforcements, were too late to be subject to casualties): perhaps 7,000–8,000 casualties from these 17,000 is a reasonable assumption. This gives 12,000–14,000 as a rough total of casualties for Macedonian infantry. Macedonian cavalry casualties are to be added, but I see no basis for calculating them.

^{page 131 note 1} Art. cit. 37.

^{page 131 note 2} Launey, M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris, 1949), i. 290ff.Google Scholar, warns rightly against interpreting ‘Macedonian’ in the Hellenistic period as a necessarily exact ethnic description. I agree, and therefore have refrained from pursuing the figures for ‘Macedonians’ in armies beyond the year 321. In Alexander's lifetime the distinction between Macedonians and Greeks or ‘Persians’ does seem to have been preserved in our sources: and we can be sure that no non-Macedonians would be concerned in decisions on the future of the kings in 321.

^{page 132 note 1} D. xviii. 12. 2; 14. 5; 15. 1; 16.4–5. Thrace can be ruled out as a recruiting ground, because it was in revolt at this time (ibid. 14. 2).

^{page 133 note 1} I have assumed that a selection of ‘picked’ soldiers would be based on age-groups, but this is not necessary for my argument. What criterion was used is immaterial, since any that was used could no doubt be adapted so as to select the required number of men for expeditionary forces and to leave the rest for home defence. Though the military needs dictated the selection, Alexander was not blind to the effect on the birth-rate of withdrawing so many of the men in their prime for service abroad for several years, as is shown by his sending home of the newly married Macedonians for the winter 334–3 (A. i. 24. 1 ff.). Whatever his plans then, he could not know, of course, that there would be no general demobilization of Macedonians serving in Asia for more than ten years.

^{page 133 note 2} Thuc. ii. 13. 6 f.; cf. Jones, A. H. M., Athenian Democracy (Oxford, 1957), 161ff.Google Scholar; cf. 82 ff.

^{page 133 note 3} I do not know how to calculate a ‘normal’ rate of wastage for a military population such as this, which even without an expedition into Asia would have lost several thousand men by death or superannuation in these years; but I should guess that 14,000 casualties (a minimum) must represent at least double a ‘normal’ rate.

^{page 134 note 1} Dem. ii. 16.

^{page 134 note 2} Polyaenus, ii. 38. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} That Demosthenes, (ix. 49)Google Scholar once implies just this is perhaps no additional reason for believing it: ἀκούετε δὲ Φίλιππον οὐχὶ τῷ Φάλαγγ' ὁπλιτῶν ἄγειν βαδίονθ' ὅποι βούλεται, ἀλλὰ τῷ ψιλούς, ἱππέας, τοξότας, ξένους, τοιοῦτον ἐξηρτῆσθαι στρατόπεδον.

^{page 134 note 4} Theopompus, (F. Gr. Hist. no. 115) F. 225b.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 5} So rightly Momigliano, A., Athenaeum, N.S. xiii (1935), 14.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 6} Theopompus, F. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} P. 15.

^{page 135 note 2} A. i. 2. 5; cf. iii. II. 8.

^{page 135 note 3} Apollonia, , i. 12. 7Google Scholar; cf. 14. 1 and 6; 15. 1; Bottiaea, , A. 1. 2. 5Google Scholar; cf. iii. II. 8. The territorial ἴλαι with Alexander were originally seven. A fourth ἴλη was called ‘of Anthemus’, a Macedonian place NE. of Potidaea: a fifth was ‘of Leugaia’, a name wholly unidentifiable. Cavalry ‘from upper Macedonia’ is heard of on Alexander's Balkan campaign (A. i. 2. 5). See in general Berve, i. 104 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 4} Hampl, F., Der König der Makedonen (Diss. Leipzig, 1934), 31ff.Google Scholar, took both names to refer to the Chalcidice places, and found support (for Bottiaea) in the known grant of land to a Macedonian Ptolemaios at Spartolus (S.I.G. i ³. 332)Google Scholar. (Contra, Zancan, P., Il monarcato ellenistico nei suoi elementi federativi (1934), 138 f.)Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 5} Arrian, , Ind. 18. 3–6Google Scholar (Macedonian trierarchs ‘from Amphipolis’ and ‘from Pydna’); cf. A. iii. 5. 3; D. xvii. 64. 5. Berve, ii. no. 557Google Scholar (Nicanor, of Stagira) must be considered doubtful: though almost every prominent Nicanor known before about 200 B.c. seems to be a Macedonian, of this one it is said that his father was Proxenus of Atarneus (Vita Aristotelis I and II, = Aristot. Fragm., ed. V. Rose, pp. 426, 437)Google Scholar. On these people Hampl, , op. cit. 22 ff.Google Scholar, writes convincingly.

^{page 136 note 1} D. xvii. 57. 2: from Elymiotis, Tymphaea, and Orestis respectively.

^{page 136 note 2} D. xvi. 34. 5 (τὴν μὲν Πόλιν κατέσκαψε, τὴν δὲ χώραν διένειμε τοῑς Μακεδόσιν).

^{page 136 note 3} Plut. Moral. 851A.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 4} Hampl, , op. cit. 29 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 5} D. xvi. 8. 6 (ἐπαυξήσας οἰκητόρων πλήθει).

^{page 137 note 1} Theopompus, F. 110 (Jacoby).Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} A. vii. 9. 2 (νόμοιςπλήθει καὶ ἔθεσι χρηστοῖς ἐκόσμησεν).

^{page 137 note 3} Hampl, op. cit., passim. Contra, Momigliano, art. cit. at p. 134, n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} A. v. 25. I ff.; vii. 8. I ff., cf. ibid. 6. I ff. It is immaterial for my purpose whether the grievances expressed at Opis were latent much earlier, as Berve believed (i. 117).

^{page 138 note 2} Dem, . ii. 15ff. (349 B.c.).Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} Polyaenus, ii. 38. 2Google Scholar; D. xvi. 35. 2.

Article contents

The Macedonian Background1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests