Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of Myths, Gods and Empires => Topic started by: wipgamesandminiatures on November 19, 2024, 02:05:31 PM
-
Hi everyone, I'm just trying to get a bit of information from the hive mind on Persian and Indian troops that actually were a part of Alexander's army, during his lifetime.
It seems to be pretty common knowledge that a Persian Companion unit was trained in the Macedonian style, as well as 30000 (I believe) Persian troops that were trained to fight in the Phalanx (but were not used?). I also know that a small number of Indian troops (parapanisadae and others) are said to have fought with Alexander at the Hydaspes.
I'm struggling to find anything that directly suggests that the troops that Alexander took over after defeating them were used in battle using their own techniques, and as such, need representation in an army list.
I would have assumed that the renowned Persian cavalry at least would have had a place in Alexander's army when he invaded India but I can't see much to suggest that they were, or weren't just adopted into the already tried and tested Macedonian cavalry to boost their numbers.
I understand that this can be a bit of a debated topic as lots of things were adopted by Alexander, like elephants and the apparent 30000 Persian phalangites, but weren't actually used in battle.
What things do you think should be represented in an Alexandrian Macedonian/Imperial Macedonian (or whatever you want to call it) army list, that aren't, and things that are included in most, but you think shouldn't be?
-
Most of the Persian troops you mention did fight in the wars of succession I think, some for 1 or other of the Macedonian Generals, then later on their own. As to how many fought WITH Alexander, there would have been a few, mostly Medes, as Alexander was, by then, Shah of Persia and entitled to a guard escort of Persian noble cavalry and guard infantry. There wouldn't have been huge numbers, however, as the Macedonians resented the Persian influences on their king and would've mutinied (again) if more Persians had joined.
-
I know its vile threadomancy to revive this topic but I have an alternate take from Rick.
I have heard from more than one source that the "Companion cavalry" wasn't all Macedonian, there were Scythians in it as well who seemed to have fought like Scythians, shooting arrows while riding around on horses. The infamous "Amazon guard" was likely part of that contingent if real since the Scythian women seemed to have fought alongside their husbands as horse archers. I could see quite a few Persian cavalry troops that may have bended the knee to Alexander getting shuffled in there given they spoke the same Persian language and may have fought in a similar manner.
Also with the Indians and in general, honestly given we are talking a decades long march across the world with long pit stops, I am not sure Alexander would have had the time or human resources to fully retrain and rearm the local fighters of conquered nations in the Macedonian or Greek manner, so yeah he probably did have them in his forces fighting the way they where use to as auxiliary regardless of how his core forces felt about non-Hellenists, possibly even to keep said core forces in check in addition to regrowing his hoard (got to remember, a good chunk of the records we have on this campaign are from Alexander's biasd Greek PR guy so some things may have had more to do with politics back in the Mediterranean than the realities of Asia).
That said for an ancient era war game army, particularly for Alexander's army, you can do what you want on how they look or what the make-up of the army is and how they fight. In fact for the old WAB book on Alexander it suggested collecting "one big army that make two opposing armies" with both Persians and Thracian being good go to secondary armies since they assumed most folks would want to play as Alexander or other Hellenists rather than straight Persian, etc.
-
We only have the sources we have, often writing long after the events, and with 2nd or 3rd hand accounts. The lack of information on some things does not mean they didnt happen.
-
Bvandewalker says that he has an 'alternate' take on what I wrote but nothing he's written contradicts it - there would have been some Persian cavalry after he became Shah of Persia and , after he married Roxana, some Sogdian or Bactrian troops as well (not sure about Scythians though - perhaps it's just easier to call all local tribes in that region 'Scythian' rather than trying to identify exactly where they were from - we're not even sure exactly where Roxana was from, after all). But, and this is an important point, the Macedonians were a more democratic lot, they followed Alexander because they wanted to and not because they had to, they would have turned round and gone home if Alexander had brought in large numbers of Persian or other troops, they'd have felt he was replacing them. So I don't buy the theory that Alexanders army ever had a significantly high proportion of non-Macedonian troops, but I've always been aware that there were some in his army.
-
I say alternate Rick because while I agree the Macedonian pike troops and cavalry were Alexander's core force (as in central to most of his tactics) I have serious doubts about the "Macedonian ethnic Majority" for his army given the campaign route. Realistically a lot of those boys would likely be dead half way through Persia just from diseases, etc.at the latest and getting "racially pure" reinforcements that inland seems suspect to me lol.
Likewise he already had a ton of Scythian (steppe nomad neighbors of Macedonia), Thracian (a Greek term for several non-greek tribes which at one time included the Macedonians), and Greek troops in his "Macedonian army", which along with the reported training of more native troops in the Macedonian style of fighting suggest to me it was more like around 20% was still from Macedonia by the time he decided to turn around in India and his army likely was never a majority of over 40% Macedonian if a majority at all outside of maybe the Greece Campaign and first half of the Persian campaign despite what overly Eurocentric historian estimates want us to believe.
Plus the Macedonian army was noted for combined arms tactics (meaning they likely fought alongside foreign troops all the time) and enough of them stayed among the natives to adopted Buddhism and form Greek colonies that are mentioned by the later Han. I get the feeling the rank and file Macedonian troops were actually more or less fine with more foreign grunts among their ranks, no I think the real issue was with non-Macedonians entering the mostly Macedonian elite commanding officer class positions which likely was where the real voting was along with the muting. (We are talking about the army of a totalitarian kingship here, not a volunteer organization).
-
With respect, you may be reading too much into some things and not enough of others - Alexander, like Phillip, was the King and led the army. However - the rankers and officers could (and did - several times) vote to do something different; Macedonian Kings were in no way a 'totalitarian' kingship, they had a much more democratic kingship where the army had a say in how it was led. You should read more about Macedonian culture, it's not what you think but does reinforce the idea that Greeks were far too bloody-minded for anyone to try to rule that they, themselves, didn't like.
As to 'combined arms' - Phillip inherited a system where the King had his bodyguard (Hypaspists), units of noble cavalry and commoner infantry that had been largely ignored. He (being more, it seems, of an infantry commander - perhaps by necessity) formed units of 'foot companions', got rid of the spear/hoplon equipment and drilled them relentlessly with smaller shields and sarissae (something he learned from growing up in other courts). Phillip created the siege train with proper siege equipment, training, and with all that, conquered Greece, the Greek city states started using sarissae and smaller shields and became part of the Macedonian system - it becomes very difficult to work out who's Greek and who's Macedonian in the Macedonian army from this point on. The system of 'combined arms' that Alexander inherited (and, perhaps, improved) was one of cavalry, infantry and engineers (siege train) working together as a whole, rather than separate entities (as had been the case before). The idea that Alexander only understood what combined arms were with foreign troops is preposterous, the idea that the army would have had allowed vast numbers of 'foreign barbarians' to share their spoils and prizes is also preposterous. Frankly the army had been ready to go home after they'd conquered Persia - Alexander held them together until India but, after that, the army had enough and was going home, with or without Alexander at that point.
Alexander founded cities, not colonies, some have survived, the vast majority didn't - he didn't leave soldiers in colonies all over the place because they wanted to go home. To Macedonia. With their hard-won loot. But he would have received reinforcements - his mother, Olympias, and Antipater (Macedonian regent and General of all Greece) made sure that new units were raised and sent into Persia, after they'd ensured there were enough troops in Greece.
-
The Ancient Western sources hate to talk about anything that is not a "shock unit" as that was the focus of the Western way of war.
Therefore, I would not be surprised if there were a large number of local and regional troops being used as/in the skirmishers, missile troops, and light troops category. I am also sure they made up a large contingent of the support units such as laborers and camp followers.
Macedonians seemed to have a certain "ethno-centrism" that would mean that watering down the actual Phalanx seemed unlikely. We even saw this with the Diadochi wars, where Ptolemy trying to recruit locals was looked down on.
However, it does seem like "Macedonian Phalanx" became watered down in the later wars to be more like a unit equipment and fighting style than actually ethnic Macedonians. I do not think this applied in the days of Alexander of even the first few (1-4 maybe?) Diadochi Wars. Perhaps around the death of Antigonus The One-Eyed as a good marker for the change to unit type versus ethnicity? However, there is no way to really tell.
-
The idea that Alexander only understood what combined arms were with foreign troops is preposterous, the idea that the army would have had allowed vast numbers of 'foreign barbarians' to share their spoils and prizes is also preposterous.
Hmm. Alexander's army included significant numbers of foreign barbarians operating in specialist roles even in the early battles: Paeonian cavalry and Agrianian light infantry, Thracian cavalry and infantry, Illyrians.
-
Easy E - you appear to be confused here. Phillip formed units of 'foot companions' as a counterpart to the noble cavalry 'companions' to instil a sense of elitism amongst his, otherwise, fairly uninspiring infantry. These were armed with the sarissa and small shield and fought in phalanxes as sarissaphoroi. These were not the only troops Phillip had but we tend to view the companion cavalry and sarissaphoroi as typically 'Macedonian'. They fielded light cavalry, often javelin armed, sometimes termed 'Illyrian' whether they were or just fought in the same style as the Illyrians, using hit and run tactics. Similarly Phillip used slingers, archers and Psiloi, all Macedonian or a mix of Macedonian and mercenary troops. After the conquest of Greece, Phillip then Alexander would have fielded greek light infantry, greek cavalry and greek sarissaphoroi (they didn't miss a trick - after being beaten by sarissas, many city states adopted them) who would likely be all but indistinguishable from Macedonians by this point, they were ALL greeks. One thing that greeks had in common was that they all looked down on non-greeks; non-greeks were all uncivilised barbarians who could never be the equal of greeks. The Greek city states were, collectively, the greatest slave-owning empire in history; greeks could not be taken as slaves, even by other greeks, but everyone else was fair game - the greeks would often wage war solely to rebuild their slave stocks. Athens had more slaves than free men at the height of her power and the Spartan helots were slaves and descendants of slaves taken merely to supply the Spartan citizens' needs. This was deeper than just 'ethno-centrism' and Alexander nearly had his Macedonian army mutiny when they found out he'd given orders for Persian troops to be equipped and trained as sarissaphoroi and companion cavalry. They simply would never have fought alongside numbers of 'barbarian' troops - it would be insulting and downright dangerous.
-
@Rick- I am not confused at all.
As I said, the Macedonians were the elite and made up the Phalanx and the Companions. Macedonians probably formed the bulk of the prestige fighting units even after Alexander's death and well into the Diadochi period. However, armies were made up of more than just those prestige, shock units. Indeed, there are a few units of Thracians, Agrarians and others mentioned earlier in this thread.
It was very common for the Ancient writers to simply overlook troops that were not involved in "shock" combat, because that was not the Western Way of war. You barely see them talk about slingers or archers playing a role in a battle unless they were somehow the decisive element. Artillery is not mentioned very much either, but we know there were sieges happening. Troops like archers, slingers, and artillerist are essential to siege-craft (and Naval efforts). Even more rarely do they talk about feeding and provisioning the army, laborers, and other logistics roles.
Therefore, I posit that native troops were allowed to fight and were used in the less glamorous and less "booty"-riffic roles in the army. What Macedonian or Greek would want to be in those ancillary and less prestigious and wealth-creating roles afterall? Why would the Ancient Authors want to talk about those Bar-Bar doing the menial work?
The revolt was not about Foreign influence on Alexander, it was probably about not allowing those Bar-Bars to take the Macedonians "good paying" jobs of being in the Phalanx! lol However, if the Bar-Bars were going to carry the baggage, clear the road, build a fort, dig a latrine, scout ahead, or fire arrows at a wall for hours on end.... the Macedonians wouldn't care. They would welcome it because that meant they did not have to. There was no glory or money in those jobs.
There is much more to an army than the shock elements of it. What you told me about was the tip of the spear. For every 1 soldier there are several people in the army to make sure that soldier can fight when and where they do. That is where you would see the foreign and native troops; as light troops, skirmishers, scouts, and logistics.
Think of the description of the Persian Army as an example. The Greek sources love to tell us about how exotic and full of strange units it is. However, when it came down to the "core" fighting force of the Persian army, it was the Persians/Medes themselves who were the core fighting force. The rest played ancillary, support and specialist roles. I would argue that the Macedonian army was no different in that respect.
-
Well we do appear to have different and conflicting views on that and I don't think we can really reconcile those views - we will have to agree to disagree.
I will just leave you with this idea, though - as I said before, Phillip was the architect of the new Macedonian army - the combined arms army. His marriage to Olympias had brought silver mines with it, enabling him to fund this re-organisation and expansion. He organised the Foot Companions into an effective fighting force alongside the existing Cavalry Companions, he fielded light troops and Psiloi and he built, from scratch, the Macedonian siege train. All of this was done with Macedonian troops - none of the city-states would fight with Phillip at this point - it wasn't until he pushed his way into Mediterranean Greece that they began to take him seriously and, before too long, he fought his way into being the General of all Greece. Macedonian troops were in the phalanxes, in the light and shock cavalry, in the light troops, psiloi and siege trains, they provided the baggage trains and support troops. Now you are trying to tell me that, a few years later, they no longer did that, they only fought in phalanxes? No, I don't buy it - they were a Macedonian Army under Phillip, they continued to be a Macedonian Army under Alexander, with some allied troops and they continued to be the core of several of the successor armies; not just the phalanxes either.
I don't anticipate we'll be putting many more posts up - we do seem to be reaching an impasse.
-
Fair enough.
Ultimately, at the end of the day; the person making the army can do what they want for their own enjoyment.
-
Mike I think your mixing up the Macedonians with the Greek city states dwellers like the Athenians and Spartans.
While it is true the Macedonians where heavily influenced by the Greeks, they where not considered Greek themselves by the Greeks till after Alexander kicked their collective Hellenist city state skulls in. the Macedonians where considered barbarians by the Greeks the same way all the other Thracian tribes where there is even some genetic evidence suggesting that the Macedonians are early slavs not Greeks, and they were NOT a democratic lot at all (the Macedonians were more like North Korea except with competent people in charge perhaps, don't mistake clear palace intrigues for democracy like some journalist ;)).
Likewise, no what Alexander setup in Persia and India would be considered colonies since it was mostly the old Persian Satraps under newish management which where huge and together by themselves accounted for a 3rd of the world's population at the time, they even broke apart into separate nation states for awhile after Alexander's death before Parthia and Rome took them all over, nation states that made the City states back in Greece look like peanuts. And every expert and resource I have read on them thus far has refereed to them as Greek colonies, your the only one making mole hills out of mountains.
Also the Greeks themselves sold each other into slavery both at home and abroad all the time. Most of the slaves at Athens where probably other Greeks and one of the main Greek exports to east India was Greek Slave girls, your statements of racial purity being that important to them seem sus, (you know like it was ancient Greek propaganda which they are famous for lol)
-
It wasn't Alexander who defeated the Greeks. Phillip II defeated the various leagues of Greek city states before Alexander became king - Alexander may or may not have been present as subordinate cavalry commander (histories are ambiguous on this point) but it was Phillip who led the Macedonians to victory over all the Greeks, as Basileus of Macedon and Hegemon of the League of Corinth. All the Greek city states acknowledged Phillip as their de facto king after that; another thing that Alexander inherited from his father but didn't actually earn for himself.
The only campaign against the Greeks under Alexander was when Thebes rebelled against Macedonian rule, just after Alexander became king - he defeated their army, destroyed the city and sold the surviving citizens into slavery - there were no more rebellions after that.
-
Rick, way I heard it that rebellion against Alexander sounded like it was the whole darn Greek world at the time, Thebes was only the lead instigator, but fine when Phillip II kicked the Greeks' collective Hellenist hiney, and clearly the Greek city states had not fully accepted the Macedonians as fellow Greeks by the time of Alexander reign otherwise there would not have been a Theban Rebellion.
-
Well yes, it wasn't quite that simple - I was erring on the side of brevity for that comment. Although there were other rebellions across Greece, following the false reports of Alexanders death in Pelium, Thebes went far further - arming themselves, declaring full and immediate independance from Macedonia then attacking the Macedonian garrison in the city, killing at least 2 officers and an unknown number of soldiers. There were also rumours (unsubstantiated, but Alexander later used them as a damn good excuse for an invasion) that the Persian Shah had paid the Theban leaders to revolt. No doubt the rest of Greece was looking on, waiting to see how the Macedonians might react and what opportunities they could make out of it - Alexanders response was clear, unequivocal and well understood by every person in Greece (the survivors, that is!).
-
Not only where they unsubstantiated, but likely an Athenian misdirect given the full details of the rebellion we have now. Where there are intrigues there is an Athenian.
-
Not only where they unsubstantiated, but likely an Athenian misdirect given the full details of the rebellion we have now. Where there are intrigues there is an Athenian.
That's probably quite true! lol
Xerxes' invasion of Greece, Thermopylae, the burning of Athens, all came about after Athenian intrigues in the Persian colonies around the Black Sea.
The weight of evidence does appear to be against Athens! lol
-
Most of our sources are also Athenian, so are they bragging or just shaming themselves? I have no idea! lol lol lol
-
Most of our sources are also Athenian, so are they bragging or just shaming themselves? I have no idea! lol lol lol
Hmm. Why are most of our sources Athenian? I'm so glad you asked, could it be the merest coincidence that Alexander burned the library archive of Persepolis at the instigation of an Athenian camp follower? Hmm. The plot thickens! lol
-
Hmm. Why are most of our sources Athenian? I'm so glad you asked, could it be the merest coincidence that Alexander burned the library archive of Persepolis at the instigation of an Athenian camp follower? Hmm. The plot thickens! lol
Almost for sure no coincidence. lol