The Origins of the Argyraspids Author(s): R. A. Lock Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 26, No.

3 (3rd Qtr., 1977), pp. 373-378 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable 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 at http://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 support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

Miszellen

373

The internal evidence would allow IG i2 18 and SEG x 15 to be parts of one and the same 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. Scepticism is the only sensible line. The two texts may be the work of the same mason, but that is as much as we dare assert19. On the content of IG i2 18 I would for the while - failing further fortunate discovery - myself profess
complete agnosticism and recommend it to others.
Univcrsity

of Leeds

Harold B. Mattingly

Epig. (1971), 43-5 (Philip). StrangelyMeritt long ago noted the very close verbal parallelism between lines 7ff. of IG i2 53 and SEG x 80 (AJP lxviii (1947) 313), but failed to draw what to me is the naturalconclusion.
"I Michael Walbank would not apparently willingly even grant as mudc as this. He

associatesSEG x 15 throughits lettering with other fifth century decrees(Hesp. xlii (1973) 334 with n. 4), but not with IG i2 18. This negative judgement is one more reason for
keeping the two texts apart.

THE ORIGINS OF THE ARGYRASPIDS' There is a widely held belief that the argyraspids were formedby Alexanderin 327 B. C., as part of the hypaspistforce of his campaignarmy. This was the view of Droysen and it was developed by Berve, who argued that Alexander created the force of argyraspidson the eve of the Indian campaign out of veteran hypaspists, to be a unit parallel to a chiliarchyof hypaspists2.Tarn dismissedBerve's argumentsand explained that there was no such unit as the argyraspidsduring Alexander'slifetime but that the term was simply confused with 'hypaspists'3.Sdcolars generally have agreed with one or other of these views4. The argyraspidsappear first in the accountsof Diodorus (17,57,2) and Curtius (4,13,27) of the battle at Gaugamela,where under Nicanor's command they held the right flanking are position of the Macedonianphalanx. In Arrian's account (3,11,9) these "argyraspids" "hypaspists"under Nicanor's command, and there has been no hesitation among scholars in dismissingthis appearanceof the term as a mistake, or as an alternative to the more 5. This establishes the important point that the terms "argyraspid" correct "hypaspists" and "hypaspist"were sometimesconfused. The evidence which led Berve to believe that the corps was formed in 327 B. C. is contained in Justin 12,7,5: on the eve of the Indian campaign, in order to make the equipmentof the army equal to the occasion, Alexander

I wish to express my thanks to Professor E. Badian for reading this article and making helpful suggestions. 2 J. G. Droysen RE 2 (1895) 800 f.; H. Bcrve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Crundlage 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'es helle'nistiques I, Paris, 1949 (= Launey) p. 297, follows Berve, as does F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grofle. Das Problem seiner Personlichkeit und seines Wirkens. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistoriscbe 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)? Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, D-6200 Wiesbaden

374

Miszellen

decorated it with silver and named the army "argyraspids",from their silver shields". The term appears again in the descriptionin Arrian of the mutiny at Opis in 324 B.C. (7,11,3): after Alexander had dismissedthe Macedonianshe formed Persian units to take their place; a Persian agema, Persian pezetairoi, a Persian body of argyraspids,and even betairoi cavalry and a royal agema of these. The term appearsalso in the descriptions of the splendourof Alexander'scourt, given with reasonablecorrespondence by three different authors, Athenaeus (12,539 e), Aelian (VH 9,3) and Polyaenus (Strateg. 4,3,24)7. First, standing inside around the tent came 500 Persian Melophoroi, then an equal numberof archers (as Polyaenus; according to Athenaeus and Aelian there were 1,000 archers), and standingin front of thesewere 500 argyraspids of outstanding physicalstature. There is no further reference to the corps during Alexander's lifetime and the first mention of it, or rather of its commander,after Alexander'sdeath is in Photius' epitome of Arrian's Diadochi (35). Here it is recorded that Antigenes, who had led the assassins in their attack on Perdiccas, and who commanded the Macedonian argyraspids,was rewarded 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 Macedonians who had stirredup trouble (38)". Antigenes turns up next in Cilicia, in 317 B.C., sharing the command over the 3,000 argyraspids with 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-eminentamong Eumenes'army and their commanderslead not only the argyraspidsbut also over 3,000 hypaspists,who are stationed next to them (Diod. 19,28,1). The nature of the argyraspids is made clearer in Diodorus (19,41,1f.), Plutarch (Eum. 16,4) and Justin (14,2,6ff.): they are said to have been all over 60 years old and to have served gloriouslyunder Philip and Alexander. Eumenes was defeated in the second battle against Antigonus and the went over to Antigonus,who sent them off to waste themselvesin the serviceof argyraspids the 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 Magnesiain 189 B.C. at the latest, the equivalent of Alexander's force of hypaspists was called argyraspids,according to Livy (37,40,7), who states that the "royal cohort" wcre called the "argyraspids" from the type of arms they carried". It also became a descriptionof a particularcategory of soldier appearingbeside the chalcaspidsin the processionat Daphne in 167 B. C. (Polyb. 30,25,5). This is the full evidence relating to the argyraspids duringand after Alexander'slifetime. Berve was led by Justin's evidence (12,7,5) to the view that Alexander formed the of Antigenes' andTeutamus' argyraspids early in 327 B. C. and on the strengthof the character force, suggested that they were veteran hypaspists whom Alexander formed into a chiliarchyunder Antigenes and attached to the hypaspist force. I shall discussBerve's case at some length in my treatment of the source material (below). Tarn's beliefs about the argyraspids were influenced by his view of the relationshipsbetween the sources, in
6 Cui gloriae ut etiam exercitus ornamenta convenirent, phaleras equorum et arma militum argento induxit exercitumque suum ab argenteis clipeis Argyraspidas appellavit. ' Cf. also FGrHist II a 81, F. 41 with commentaryII c pp. 138f.
R The trouble had been over some pay which Alexander had promised them but which they had not received(id. 32-3). 9 Cf. Weissenborn and 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.

Miszellen

375

particular his contempt for Justin and much of Diodorus (see especially pp. 123-125). He arguesthat Hieronymuscalled Alexander'shypaspists"argyraspids" when they entered Eumenes'service, and the familiarity of the sourceswith this usage led them to introduce the identification too early, all usages prior to 317 B.C. being anadhronistic (pp. 151f.). His argumentis poor, as is shown conclusively by Strasburgerin his review of Tarn1. Berve's casc is based more closely on the individual instances of the term and we must now look at these. The evidence of Justin is not good. It is certainly wrong that Alexandercalled his whole army "argyraspids", and the context of the evidence which Berve would use to establish the datc of the formationof the argyraspidsis hardly such as to inspire confidence. The wealth of India was legendaryand there was a tradition,clearly reflected in Curtius(8,5,4) and Justin (12,7,5), that Alexander'sarmy matchedthe fabulous splendourof the Indians. It is not difficult to see how this tradition could become related to the famed argyraspids of Alexander. That this connection was not made by the ultimate source of Justin and Curtius (there is no doubt that a common source lies at the root of their accounts) is indicated by Curtius' omission of any reference to the formation of that body. ITere can be no doubt that Justin's evidence should not be used to support a date of 327 B. C. for the institutionof the argyraspids (cf. Tarn pp. 123f.). That Berve's interpretation of the Justin passageis unacceptable,is also indicatedby the absenceof any referenceto the corps during the courseof the campaigningof 327-323 B.C. This seemsquite decisive supportfor the view that the argyraspidsdid not exist at this time, especiallywhen the prominenceof the unit after Alexander'sdeath is considered.The other referenceBerve uses to indicate the existence of the argyraspidsfrom 327 B.C. is Arrian 7,11,3, in which the formationof a replacementunit of Persian argyraspidsis described"1. Tarn has criticised Berve's interpretation,arguing that this is a clear case of confusion betwecn the terms "argyraspid" and "hypaspist",and points out that the absence of any referenceto the most importanthypaspistbody makes it certain that Arrian has here used where he should have used "hypaspist". "argyraspid" Tarn seems to have a very good case in that there should have been a unit of Persian hypaspistsbeside the pezetairoi and the Companion cavalry, whereas the argyraspids,who receive no mention up to this time, apart from the highly suspectreferencein Justin, seem to have no claim to inclusion here. I find little difficulty in accepting that "argyraspid"in this passage is a mistake for and the evidence is certainly not sufficient to supporta case for the existence "hypaspist", of a unit of argyraspids from 327 B. C. The other evidence used by Berve is the description of Alexander's court. Although Polyaenus says that he is describingthe court which Alexander held among the Bactrians, Hyrcaniansand Indians,it cannot be believed that Alexanderhad a force of 10,000 Persian guards at any time before the return to the heartland of Persia in 324 B.C.; for it was only then that Alexander made extensive use of Persian soldiers and fully adopted the court ceremony2. The details of the descriptionmake it clear that the scene is taken from the last year of Alexander's life. This passage cannot, therefore, be used to indicate that the argyraspids were formedbefore 324 B. C. However, it may be thought that the evidence of the descriptionclearly indicates that Alexander formed the argyraspidswhen he returned from India in 324 B. C. That he
1U

BO 9, 1952, pp. 202-211, esp. 210.

11 Cf. Launey 319.

12 Cf. F. Schachermeyr, Alexanderin Babylon und die Reichsordnung nach seinem Tode. Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Pbilosophisch-Historische Klasse S.B., 268.3,

Wien, 1970 (= Schachermeyr Al. in Bab.).

376

Miszellen

establishedan elaborate and colourful court at this time nobody would deny, but this is the only evidence that the formation of the argyraspids is attributable to Alexander and himself and, in view of the establishedtendency to confuse the terms "argyraspid" we mustdiscussits reliability. "hypaspist", The survival of the hypaspistsafter Alexander'sdeath is well attested. Eumenescopied Alexander's unit in his 6lite guard of 3,000 in the struggles with Antigonus and called them "hypaspists";Perdiccas in his invasion of Egypt used hypaspists in precisely thc 13. Thereis no sameway as Alexanderhad done, as did Seleucusin his fight againstDemetrius doubt, therefore, that the hypaspist body survived and kept its traditional role up until Alexander's death and beyond. The hypaspists were Alexander's guards and as such one might expect them to appear in the description of the court scene, especially since the melophoroi,who are Alexander'sPersian guardsand who (we are told) had an equal share with the Macedoniansin the guardingof the king, do appear in the description.We may here, for much the same reason that we be justifiably suspiciousof the term "argyraspid" in Arrian7,11,3. of it in its appearance were suspicious which fought There is furtherreasonfor suspicion.The natureof the corps of argyraspids under Eumenes (as given by the sources)is not such as to make credible that it was this force, or part of it, which presented a dazzling spectacle at the court of Alexander in 324 B.C.: for despite Tarn's rejectionof the evidence about the age of the argyraspids14, featuresof the unit was its veteran there seemslittle doubt that one of the most characteristic quality. Now, even if we were to assume for the purposesof argumentthat the average age of the argyraspidswas in the 40's and not the 60's as Diodorus and Plutarchsay, it is impossible to believe that Alexander could have ranged them beside the young and handsomePersiansin his court in 324 B.C., when at least some would have been nearing that whichappears their fifties 15. To claim that there were two separateunits of argyraspids, in the descriptionof the court and another which served Eumenes,would require special pleading. It seems impossible to relate the argyraspidsof Eumenesto the argyraspidsof Alexander as they appear in the descriptionof the court. Therefore,since it is established is often mistakenlyused for "hypaspist"and "hypaspist"would fit the that "argyraspid" of Polyaenus,Aelian and Athenaeus context, there can be little doubt that in the descriptions one for "hypaspist". shouldbe viewed as an anachronistic the use of "argyraspid" It appears likely that the passages derived ultimately from Chares, who should have known his terminologywell enough not to have made such a mistake; but Athenaeustells certainlytook it fromDurisIS: and Phylarchus us that he took his quotationfrom Phylarchus, Polyaenusand Aelian do not quote their sourcebut their versions are so similar that they is notable Neither Duris nor Phylarchus certainly came from Duris, if not from Phylarchus. 7. It is by no means unlikely for his accuracy,writing rather with an eye to sensationalism for the "hypaspist" that one of them decided to use the more interestingword "argyraspid" which he found in the source. The emphasisin the descriptionsis upon the colour and splendourof the scene, and it would have been particularlytempting to an author of the
Diod. 19,28,1; 18,33,6; Polyaenus Strateg. 4,9,3. p. 151 n. 4; followed by P. A. Brunt, "Alexander's Macedonian cavalry" 1963, pp. 27-46, esp. 39. 15 There can be little doubt that Alexander was conscious of the appearance of and would not have wanted there as guards men past their prime and worn out by of hard campaigning. "' FGrHist II c pp. 138 f. 17 Cf. for instance F. Walbank, "History and Tragedy", Historia 9, 1960, pp. esp. 216 ff.
13 14

JHS 83, his court a decade

216-234,

Miszellen

377

a synonymfor the stampof Duris or Phylarchusto introduceanother colour by substituting began word "hypaspist". We do not, of course,know when it was that the term "argyraspid" but since it was certainly before to be used by the Seleucidsto describetheir "hypaspists", 189 B.C. there is no real difficulty in supposingthat this meaningof the term was current in Phylardcus' time, i.e. the last quarterof the 3rd century B.C., or even Duris' day, the mid-3rdcentury18. I concludethat there is no evidence that the argyraspidswere formed duringAlexander's lifetime. The evidence indicates rather that they were a product of the years of conflict following Alexander'sdeath. Photius'epitome of Arrian'sDiadochi (38) would seem to give a clear indicationof the origin of the unit. Antipater sent Antigenes from Susa, giving him 3,000 troublesomeMacedoniansto escort the treasure.That these troops were veterans of Alexander's campaigning needs no demonstration (id. 34); that Antipater was actually sending them home at this time is also most likely19, and the troops which turn up under Antigenes' and Teutamus'command in Cilicia, 3,000 in number,can bc none other than those troublemakers which Antipater had sent away. It seems to me most probablethat in between the time of their departurefrom Susa in 321 B. C. and their appearancein Cilicia in 317 B. C. they had been formed by Antigenes and Teutamus into a freclance semimercenary unit, proclaiming their close connection with Alexander by decorating their shields with silver. This interpretationrequiresthat the descriptionof Antigenes in Photius Antigenes was not yet leader of the argyraspidswhen he led the (id. 35) is anachronistic; attack upon Perdiccas.There is no real difficulty in this, however, because Antigenes was clearly best known for his connectionwith the argyraspidsand anyone wanting to distinguish this Antigenes from others would be tempted naturally to use this connection, even if he were not yet commander of them20. of the argyraspidforce seems to fit their character This explanation of the background as revealed in the battles between Eumenesand Antigonus. The mercenarynature of the men and the very extremc reactionof Antigonusto their betrayal of Eumenes21 can best be of stirringup trouble to obtain money from Antipater explained if they had a background in 321 B. C. and of four years of adventuringand unruly plundering222.It is not, of course, likely that precisely the same 3,000 men who left Susa served in the army of Eumenes; some of these would have left or died and others joined the force, but I have no doubt that these formedthe majorityof thosein the unit.
1R The very poor evidence for the history of the 3rd century makes it not at all difficult to 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 the Anabasis, even though Ptolemy wrote the work Arrian was drawing upon many years before he became king. (For the date of Ptolemy's work cf. M. Errington "The bias of Ptolemy 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 been Alexander's hypaspists (contra Tarn 151 f.). For a discussion of the character of the argyraspid force, see now P. Briant, "D'Alexandre le Grand aux diadoques, le cas d'Eum'ene de Kardia", REA 75, 1973, pp. 43-81 esp. 58-61. 22 Schachermeyr (Al. in Bab. p. 14) has the force of argyraspids follow some very elaborate patterns of movement between 324 B. C., when he believes they were discharged by Alexander, and 317 B. C. Antigenes does seem to have been discharged at Opis (Justin 12,12,8; Berve II no. 83), but there is no evidence that the men he commanded in 317 B.C. were also discharged at this time.

378

Miszellen

have been connectedwith Alexander'shypaspistsby scholarsbecauseof The argyraspids the confusionbetweenthe two terms. I have argued,however, that the confusionwas caused and Alexander'shypaspists,but by a connection not by a connectionbetweenthe argyraspids and the Seleucid hypaspists.That such a connectionexisted is clear between the argyraspids 23. enough:Livy statesexplicitly that the royal elite infantrywere called "argyraspids" 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 connectionshould be offered. The original argyraspidsboasted of their association with Alexander and used the distinctive shield to mark their heritage, and the unit clearly caught the imaginationof the people, as a force carrying on the tradition of Alexander's invincible Macedonian army24. This idea of continuity was of paramount importance to the leaders in the years following Alexander's death and it is quite understandablethat someone adopted the distinctive marking to proclaim the connection with Alexander's army and the invincibility of his royal infantry force. This force would, of course, necessarilybe Macedonian,in theory at armourwas a claim to be of least, and it gave rise to another development:an argyraspid's Macedoniandescent25. One can only guess at the date of the adoption of this term for the royal force of Eliteinfantry, but it would have more point if it were taken to be before the memory of what the argyraspidshad stood for faded. Therefore, I would suggest that began to be used of what already by the beginningof the 3rd century B. C. "argyraspid" hypaspists. was the equivalentof Alexander's Wellington
23 24

R. A. Lock

Livy 37,40,7.Cf. n. 9 above. of Diodorus19,41. Cf. the speedcand the description 25 The term later meant only that the troops wore a certain style of armour (cf. Launey319 f.).

THE PROVISIONS

OF THE LEX OCTAVIA FRUMENTARIA

In a previous article I attempted to date the lex Octavia to the period between 99 and 87 B.C.1. Here I shall limit the discussionto the reconstructionof the particulars of that law in so far as this is possible. ITough the following argumentsshould not be completely divorced from the conjectureddating proposedearlier, they are of themselves quite independent of that or any other proposed dates. They rest solely upon what is clearly attestedby or may be logically inferredfrom the extant evidence. What do our sourcesreveal concerningthe lex Octavia? First of all, that it replacedthe 2. Second, that the lex Sempronia frumentaria of 123 B. C., which was thereby abrogated lex Octavia was designedto reduce the cost to the public treasuryof the corn distributions 3. Third, that it was (frumentationes) without causing widespread popular discontent presentedto the people by a certain M. Octavius Cn. f., undoubtedly with the backing of the nobiles (tantum auctoritate valuit)4, in a manner calculated to win support and acceptance among the masses. Finally, although the sources make no specific statement of the fact, the law must have been a plebiscitum sponsoredby a tribune of the plebs. of the law beyond this nothing is attested.For these This muchis certain;of the particulars we must resortto inferenceand logical deduction.
I
3

Historia21 (1972) 235-243.

Cic. Off. 2.72.
4

Cic. Brut.62.222.

Cic. Brut. 62.222.

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