argyraspids

7/27/2019 Argyraspids

1/7

The Origins of the Argyraspids

Author(s): R. A. LockSource: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 26, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1977), pp. 373-378Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435568

Accessed: 03/09/2010 10:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistoria:

Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4435568?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4435568?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv


2/7

Miszellen 373The internalevidencewould allow IG i2 18 and SEG x 15 to be parts of one and thesame decree.But there is too little of it and it is all too uncertain.I have no wish to abjure

one folly and fall into a worse. Scepticismis the only sensible line. The two texts maybe the work of the same mason,but that is as muchas we dare assert 9. On the contentof IG i2 18 I would for the while - failing further fortunate discovery - myself professcomplete agnosticism and recommend it to others.Univcrsity of Leeds Harold B. MattinglyEpig. (1971), 43-5 (Philip). StrangelyMerittlong ago notedthe veryclose verbalparallelismbetween lines 7ff. of IG i2 53 and SEG x 80 (AJP lxviii (1947) 313), but failed to drawwhat to me is the naturalconclusion."I Michael Walbank would not apparently willingly even grant as mudc as this. HeassociatesSEG x 15 through ts letteringwith other fifth century decrees(Hesp. xlii (1973)334 with n. 4), but not with IG i2 18. This negative judgementis one more reason forkeeping the two texts apart.

THE ORIGINS OF THE ARGYRASPIDS'There is a widely held belief that the argyraspidswere formed by Alexander n 327 B. C.,as part of the hypaspist force of his campaign army. This was the view of Droysen and itwas developed by Berve, who argued that Alexander created the force of argyraspidsonthe eve of the Indian campaign out of veteran hypaspists, to be a unit parallel to a

chiliarchyof hypaspists2.Tarn dismissedBerve'sargumentsand explained that there wasno such unit as the argyraspidsduring Alexander's ifetime but that the term was simplyconfused with 'hypaspists'3.Sdcolars generally have agreed with one or other of theseviews .The argyraspidsappearfirst in the accountsof Diodorus (17,57,2)and Curtius(4,13,27)of the battle at Gaugamela,where under Nicanor's commandthey held the right flankingpositionof the Macedonianphalanx. In Arrian'saccount (3,11,9) these "argyraspids" re"hypaspists"under Nicanor's command, and there has been no hesitation among scholarsin dismissing his appearanceof the term as a mistake, or as an alternative to the morecorrect "hypaspists". This establishesthe important point that the terms "argyraspid"and "hypaspist"were sometimesconfused.The evidence which led Berve to believe thatthe corps was formedin 327 B. C. is contained in Justin 12,7,5: on the eve of the Indiancampaign,in order to make the equipmentof the army equal to the occasion, Alexander

I I wish to express my thanks to Professor E. Badian for reading this article and makinghelpful suggestions.

2 J. G. Droysen RE 2 (1895) 800 f.; H. Bcrve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischerCrundlage I and II (Miindcen, 1926 (= Berve I and Berve II)), I p. 128.

3 W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great II, Cambridge, 1948 (= Tarn), p. 151.4 M. Launey, Recherches sur les arme'eshelle'nistiques I, Paris, 1949 (= Launey) p. 297,

follows Berve, as does F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grofle. Das Problem seiner Person-lichkeit und seines Wirkens. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historiscbe Klasse S. B., 285, Wien, 1973 ( Schachermeyr Al. d. Gr.) p. 14 n. 10. R. Milns,"The hypaspists of Alexander IIl" Historia 20, 1971, pp. 186-195, esp. 189, follows Tarn.

5 Cf. for instance Berve I p. 128, n. 3.Historia, Band XXVI/3 (1977)? FranzSteiner Verlag GmbH, D-6200 Wiesbaden


3/7

374 Miszellendecoratedit with silver and named the army "argyraspids", rom their silver shields".The term appearsagain in the description n Arrian of the mutiny at Opis in 324 B.C.(7,11,3): after Alexander had dismissedthe Macedonianshe formed Persian units to taketheir place; a Persianagema, Persianpezetairoi, a Persian body of argyraspids,and evenbetairoi cavalry and a royal agema of these. The term appears also in the descriptions fthe splendourof Alexander'scourt, given with reasonable orrespondence y threedifferentauthors, Athenaeus(12,539 e), Aelian (VH 9,3) and Polyaenus (Strateg. 4,3,24) . First,standing inside around the tent came 500 Persian Melophoroi, then an equal numberofarchers (as Polyaenus; according to Athenaeus and Aelian there were 1,000 archers),andstanding n front of thesewere 500 argyraspids f outstandingphysicalstature.There is no further reference to the corps during Alexander'slifetime and the firstmention of it, or rather of its commander,after Alexander'sdeath is in Photius'epitomeof Arrian'sDiadochi (35). Here it is recorded that Antigenes,who had led the assassinsin their attack on Perdiccas, and who commanded the Macedonian argyraspids,wasrewarded by Antipater with command over all Susiana. This can be dated to 321 B.C.Antipater, however, then ordered him to transport the treasury at Susa to the west,and gave him about 3,000 of the Macedonianswho had stirred up trouble (38)". Antigenesturns up next in Cilicia, in 317 B.C., sharing the command over the 3,000 argyraspidswith Teutamus,and joining the army of Eumenes, who is preparingto fight Antigonus.Antigenes and Teutamushad received letters from the kings instructingthem to do this(Diod. 18,59,3; Plut. Eum. 13,2-3; Justin 14,2,6f.). These troops are pre-eminentamongEumenes'army and their commanders ead not only the argyraspidsbut also over 3,000hypaspists,who are stationed next to them (Diod. 19,28,1).The nature of the argyraspidsis made clearer in Diodorus (19,41,1f.), Plutarch(Eum. 16,4) and Justin (14,2,6ff.): theyare said to have been all over 60 yearsold and to have served gloriouslyunderPhilip andAlexander. Eumenes was defeated in the second battle against Antigonus and theargyraspidswent over to Antigonus,who sent them off to waste themselves n the serviceofthe satrap of Arachosia;he wished to prevent their seeing their home ever again (Plut.Eurm.19,2; Diod. 19,48,4).This force clearly ceased to exist at this time, but later, by the battle of Magnesia n189 B.C. at the latest, the equivalent of Alexander's force of hypaspistswas calledargyraspids,accordingto Livy (37,40,7), who states that the "royal cohort" wcre calledthe "argyraspids" rom the type of armsthey carried". It also becamea descriptionof aparticularcategoryof soldierappearingbeside the chalcaspidsn the processionat Daphnein 167 B. C. (Polyb. 30,25,5).This is the full evidencerelatingto the argyraspidsduringand after Alexander's ifetime.Berve was led by Justin's evidence (12,7,5) to the view that Alexander formed theargyraspidsarlyin 327 B. C. and on the strengthof the character f Antigenes' ndTeutamus'force, suggested that they were veteran hypaspists whom Alexander formed into achiliarchyunderAntigenesand attachedto the hypaspistforce. I shall discussBerve'scaseat some length in my treatment of the source material (below). Tarn'sbeliefs about theargyraspidswere influenced by his view of the relationshipsbetween the sources, in

6 Cui gloriae ut etiam exercitus ornamenta convenirent, phaleras equorum et armamilitum argento induxit exercitumque suum ab argenteis clipeis Argyraspidas appellavit.' Cf. alsoFGrHist II a 81, F. 41 with commentary I c pp. 138 f.

R The trouble had been over some pay which Alexander had promised them but whichtheyhad not received id. 32-3).9 Cf. Weissenborn nd Muller'sedition of Livy vol. 8, Berlin, 1907,ad. loc.; F. Walbank,A historical commentary on Polybius, Oxford, 1957-1967,I p. 608; II p. 64.


4/7

Miszellen 375particularhis contempt for Justin and much of Diodorus (see especially pp. 123-125).He argues that Hieronymuscalled Alexander'shypaspists"argyraspids"when they enteredEumenes' ervice,and the familiarityof the sourceswith this usage led them to introducethe identificationtoo early, all usages prior to 317 B.C. being anadhronisticpp. 151f.).His argument s poor, as is shown conclusively by Strasburgern his review of Tarn1.Berve'scasc is based more closely on the individual instancesof the term and we mustnowlook at these.The evidenceof Justinis not good. It is certainlywrong that Alexandercalled his wholearmy "argyraspids", nd the context of the evidence which Berve would use to establishthe datc of the formationof the argyraspids s hardly such as to inspireconfidence.Thewealth of Indiawas legendaryand therewas a tradition, clearly reflectedin Curtius(8,5,4)and Justin(12,7,5), that Alexander'sarmy matched he fabuloussplendourof the Indians.It is not difficult to see how this traditioncould becomerelatedto the famed argyraspidsof Alexander.That this connectionwas not made by the ultimate source of Justin andCurtius (there is no doubt that a common source lies at the root of their accounts)is indicated by Curtius'omissionof any referenceto the formation of that body. ITerecan be no doubt that Justin's evidenceshould not be used to supporta date of 327 B.C.for theinstitutionof theargyraspids cf. Tarn pp. 123 f.).That Berve'sinterpretation f the Justinpassage s unacceptable, s also indicatedby theabsenceof any reference o the corpsduringthe courseof the campaigning f 327-323 B.C.This seemsquitedecisivesupportfor the view that the argyraspidsdid not exist at this time,especiallywhen the prominenceof the unit after Alexander'sdeath is considered.The otherreferenceBerve uses to indicatethe existenceof the argyraspids rom 327 B.C. is Arrian7,11,3, in which the formationof a replacementunit of Persianargyraspids s described"1.Tarn has criticisedBerve's interpretation,arguingthat this is a clear case of confusionbetwecnthe terms"argyraspid" nd "hypaspist",and points out that the absence of anyreferenceto the most importanthypaspistbody makes it certainthat Arrianhas here used"argyraspid"where he shouldhave used "hypaspist".Tarn seems to have a very good casein that there should have been a unit of Persianhypaspistsbeside the pezetairoi and theCompanion cavalry, whereas the argyraspids,who receive no mention up to this time,apart from the highly suspect referencein Justin,seem to have no claim to inclusion here.I find little difficulty in accepting that "argyraspid" n this passage is a mistake for"hypaspist", nd the evidence is certainly not sufficient to support a case for the existenceof a unitof argyraspidsrom 327 B. C.

The other evidence used by Berve is the description of Alexander'scourt. AlthoughPolyaenus says that he is describing he court which Alexander held among the Bactrians,Hyrcaniansand Indians, t cannot be believedthat Alexander had a force of 10,000Persianguards at any time before the returnto the heartland of Persia in 324 B.C.; for it wasonly then that Alexandermade extensive use of Persian soldiers and fully adopted thecourt ceremony . The details of the descriptionmake it clear that the scene is taken fromthe last year of Alexander's life. This passagecannot, therefore, be used to indicate thattheargyraspidswereformedbefore 324B. C.However, it may be thoughtthat the evidence of the descriptionclearly indicates thatAlexander formed the argyraspidswhen he returned from India in 324 B. C. That he1U BO 9, 1952, pp. 202-211, esp. 210.11 Cf. Launey 319.12 Cf. F. Schachermeyr, lexander n Babylonund die ReichsordnungachseinemTode.Osterreichische kademieder Wissenschaften, bilosophisch-Historischelasse S.B., 268.3,Wien, 1970 (= SchachermeyrAl. in Bab.).


5/7

376 Miszellenestablishedan elaborateand colourful court at this time nobody would deny, but this isthe only evidence that the formation of the argyraspids is attributableto Alexanderhimself and, in view of the established tendency to confuse the terms "argyraspid" nd"hypaspist",we must discussts reliability.The survival of the hypaspistsafter Alexander'sdeath is well attested.EumenescopiedAlexander'sunit in his 6lite guard of 3,000 in the struggleswith Antigonus and calledthem "hypaspists";Perdiccas in his invasion of Egypt used hypaspistsin precisely thcsameway as Alexanderhad done, as did Seleucus n his fight againstDemetrius3. There s nodoubt, therefore, that the hypaspist body survived and kept its traditional role up untilAlexander's death and beyond. The hypaspistswere Alexander'sguards and as such onemight expect them to appear in the descriptionof the court scene, especially since themelophoroi,who are Alexander'sPersianguardsand who (we are told) had an equal sharewith the Macedonians n the guardingof the king, do appear in the description.We maybe justifiablysuspiciousof the term "argyraspid"here, for much the same reason that weweresuspicious f it in its appearancen Arrian7,11,3.There is furtherreasonfor suspicion.Thenatureof the corps of argyraspidswhichfoughtunder Eumenes(as given by the sources) s not suchas to make crediblethat it was thisforce, or part of it, which presented a dazzling spectacle at the court of Alexander in324 B.C.: for despite Tarn'srejectionof the evidence about the age of the argyraspids14,there seems ittle doubtthatone of the most characteristiceaturesof the unit was its veteranquality. Now, even if we were to assumefor the purposesof argument hat the averageage of the argyraspidswas in the 40's and not the 60's as Diodorus and Plutarchsay, it isimpossible to believe that Alexander could have ranged them beside the young andhandsomePersians n his court in 324 B.C., when at least some would have been nearingtheir fifties15. To claimthat there were two separateunits of argyraspids,hat whichappearsin the descriptionof the court and anotherwhich served Eumenes,would requirespecialpleading. It seemsimpossibleto relate the argyraspidsof Eumenesto the argyraspidsofAlexander as they appearin the descriptionof the court. Therefore,since it is establishedthat "argyraspid"s often mistakenlyused for "hypaspist"and "hypaspist"would fit thecontext,therecan be little doubt that in the descriptions f Polyaenus,Aelian and Athenaeustheuseof "argyraspid"houldbe viewedas an anachronisticne for "hypaspist".It appearslikely that the passagesderived ultimately from Chares,who should haveknown his terminologywell enoughnot to have made sucha mistake;but Athenaeus ellsus that he tookhisquotationfromPhylarchus, ndPhylarchus ertainlytook it fromDuris S:Polyaenusand Aelian do not quote their sourcebut their versionsare so similarthat theycertainlycame fromDuris, if not from Phylarchus.Neither Duris nor Phylarchuss notablefor his accuracy,writing ratherwith an eye to sensationalism. It is by no meansunlikelythat one of them decidedto use the moreinterestingword "argyraspid"or the "hypaspist"which he found in the source.The emphasis n the descriptions s upon the colour andsplendourof the scene,and it would have been particularlytemptingto an authorof the

13 Diod. 19,28,1; 18,33,6; Polyaenus Strateg. 4,9,3.14 p. 151 n. 4; followed by P. A. Brunt, "Alexander's Macedonian cavalry" JHS 83,

1963, pp. 27-46, esp. 39.15 There can be little doubt that Alexander was conscious of the appearance of his court

and would not have wanted there as guards men past their prime and worn out by a decadeof hard campaigning."' FGrHist II c pp. 138 f.

17 Cf. for instance F. Walbank, "History and Tragedy", Historia 9, 1960, pp. 216-234,esp. 216 ff.


6/7

Miszellen 377stamp of Duris or Phylarchus o introduceanother colourby substituting synonym for theword "hypaspist".We do not, of course,know when it was that the term "argyraspid" eganto be used by the Seleucidsto describe heir "hypaspists",but since it was certainly before189 B.C. there is no real difficulty in supposing hat this meaning of the term was currentin Phylardcus' ime, i.e. the last quarterof the 3rd century B.C., or even Duris' day, themid-3rdcentury18.I concludethat there is no evidence that the argyraspidswere formed during Alexander'slifetime. The evidence indicates rather that they were a product of the years of conflictfollowing Alexander'sdeath.Photius'epitome of Arrian'sDiadochi (38) would seem to givea clear indicationof the origin of the unit. Antipater sent Antigenes from Susa, giving him3,000 troublesomeMacedonians o escort the treasure.That these troops were veteransofAlexander's campaigningneeds no demonstration (id. 34); that Antipater was actuallysendingthem home at this time is also most likely19, and the troops whichturn up underAntigenes'and Teutamus'command in Cilicia, 3,000 in number, can bc none other thanthose troublemakerswhich Antipaterhad sent away. It seemsto me most probable that inbetweenthe time of their departure romSusain 321 B. C. and their appearance n Ciliciain 317 B.C. they had been formed by Antigenes and Teutamus into a freclance semi-mercenary unit, proclaimingtheir close connection with Alexander by decorating theirshieldswith silver. This interpretation equires hat the descriptionof Antigenesin Photius(id. 35) is anachronistic;Antigenes was not yet leader of the argyraspidswhen he led theattackupon Perdiccas.Thereis no real difficulty in this, however, becauseAntigeneswasclearly best known for his connectionwith the argyraspidsand anyone wanting to distin-guish this Antigenes from others would be tempted naturally to use this connection,evenif hewerenot yet commander f them20.This explanation of the background f the argyraspid orce seems to fit their characteras revealed in the battles between Eumenesand Antigonus.The mercenarynatureof themen and the very extremcreactionof Antigonusto theirbetrayal of Eumenes21 can best beexplainedif they had a background f stirring up trouble to obtain money from Antipaterin 321 B.C. and of four yearsof adventuringand unrulyplundering222.It is not, of course,likely that precisely the same 3,000 men who left Susa served in the army of Eumenes;someof these would have left or died and othersjoinedthe force, but I have no doubtthattheseformed hemajorityof those n theunit.

1R The very poor evidence for the history of the 3rd century makes it not at all difficultto accept that the term "argyraspid" was used extensively earlier than 189 B. C.19 The veterans were difficult to control and were scarcely an asset to the force(id., 32-3).

20We might compare Arrian's description of Ptolemy as "King" in his Preface to theAnabasis, even though Ptolemy wrote the work Arrian was drawing upon many yearsbefore he became king. (For the date of Ptolemy's work cf. M. Errington "The bias ofPtolemy the historian". CQ 19, 1969, pp. 233-42, esp. 241 f.).

21 Diod. 19,48,3; Plut. Eum. 19,2. This would be surprising, I think, if they had beenAlexander's hypaspists (contra Tarn 151 f.). For a discussion of the character of theargyraspid force, see now P. Briant, "D'Alexandre le Grand aux diadoques, le cas d'Eum'enede Kardia", REA 75, 1973, pp. 43-81 esp. 58-61.22 Schachermeyr (Al. in Bab. p. 14) has the force of argyraspids follow some veryelaborate patterns of movement between 324 B. C., when he believes they were dischargedby Alexander, and 317 B. C. Antigenes does seem to have been discharged at Opis (Justin12,12,8; Berve II no. 83), but there is no evidence that the men he commanded in 317 B.C.were also discharged at this time.


7/7

378 MiszellenThe argyraspidshave been connectedwith Alexander'shypaspistsby scholarsbecauseofthe confusionbetweenthe two terms.I have argued,however,that the confusionwas caused

not by a connectionbetween the argyraspids nd Alexander'shypaspists,but by a connectionbetween the argyraspids nd the Seleucidhypaspists.That sucha connectionexisted is clearenough:Livy statesexplicitly that theroyalelite infantrywere called "argyraspids"3.It is also evident that the royal Elite infantry were called hypaspists(Polybius 7,16,2;Zeno 16,18,7;FGrH 257 F 36). Some explanationof the connectionshouldbe offered. Theoriginal argyraspidsboasted of their association with Alexander and used the distinctiveshield to mark their heritage, and the unit clearly caught the imaginationof the people,as a force carryingon the traditionof Alexander'sinvincible Macedonianarmy 4. Thisidea of continuity was of paramount importanceto the leaders in the years followingAlexander'sdeath and it is quite understandable hat someone adopted the distinctivemarkingto proclaimthe connectionwith Alexander's army and the invincibilityof hisroyal infantry force. This force would, of course,necessarilybe Macedonian, n theory atleast, and it gave rise to another development:an argyraspid's rmourwas a claim to be ofMacedoniandescent 5. One can only guess at the date of the adoptionof this term for theroyal forceof Elite nfantry,but it would have morepoint if it were taken to be beforethememory of what the argyraspidshad stood for faded. Therefore, I would suggestthatalready by the beginningof the 3rd century B. C. "argyraspid" egan to be used of whatwas the equivalentof Alexander'shypaspists.Wellington R. A. Lock

23 Livy37,40,7.Cf. n. 9 above.24 Cf. thespeedcandthe description f Diodorus19,41.25 The term later meant only that the troops wore a certain style of armour (cf.Launey319 f.).

THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEX OCTAVIA FRUMENTARIAIn a previous article I attempted to date the lex Octavia to the period between 99and 87 B.C.1. Here I shall limit the discussionto the reconstructionof the particularsof that law in so far as this is possible.ITough the following argumentsshould not be

completelydivorced from the conjectureddating proposedearlier,they are of themselvesquite independentof that or any other proposed dates. They rest solely upon what isclearlyattestedby or maybelogicallyinferred romtheextant evidence.Whatdo our sourcesreveal concerning he lex Octavia? Firstof all, that it replaced helex Sempronia frumentaria of 123 B.C., which was therebyabrogated. Second, that thelex Octavia was designedto reducethe cost to the public treasuryof the corn distributions(frumentationes) without causing widespread popular discontent . Third, that it waspresentedto the people by a certain M. Octavius Cn. f., undoubtedlywith the backingof the nobiles (tantum auctoritate valuit)4, in a manner calculated to win supportandacceptance among the masses.Finally, although the sourcesmake no specific statementof the fact, the law must have been a plebiscitumsponsoredby a tribuneof the plebs.Thismuch s certain;of the particulars f the law beyond this nothingis attested.For thesewe mustresort o inferenceandlogicaldeduction.

I Historia21 (1972)235-243. 2 Cic.Brut.62.222.3 Cic. Off. 2.72. 4 Cic. Brut. 62.222.

Historia, Band XXVI/3 (1977)C Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, D-6200 Wiesbaden

argyraspids

Documents