Makedonia ad Eperios

[Cappadox]

I was just wondering why the provinces north of Pella are Makedonia homeland province but homeland troop recruitment in very limited, also what are the reasons historical that Eperios can recruit the Makedonian royal units

[Maion Maroneios]

Because even though those regions encompass the historical regions the Makedones occupied, troops like Pezhetairoi and such where only recruitable from urban populations, meaning the southern ones which where wealthier and more advanced.

Epeiros and Makedonia might be of similar ethnical origin (both of them Hellenes, or rather the ruling class from which the elites are trained), but they had different principles and ideals. They also advanced sepparetely, meaning they had their own troops, tactics and such. The Epeirotai may have copied Makedonian troops, but units like the Hypaspistai, Hetairoi and Pezhetairoi where only available to Makedones. The only thing the Epeirotai could do, was to copy such units, like the Molosson and Chaonion Agemata in EB.

Maion

[Krusader]

I was just wondering why the provinces north of Pella are Makedonia homeland province but homeland troop recruitment in very limited, also what are the reasons historical that Eperios can recruit the Makedonian royal units

Think there was mention of in sources of Pyrrhus having a corps of Hypaspistai in his armies. No wheter this are Hypaspistai in name only or true Hypaspistai as the Makedonians fielded, is up for debate. The reasoning Hypaspistai and Peltastai Makedonikoi are available for Epeirotes is if they seize Makedonia and would then field their own royal corps. Considering that Pyrrhus had been briefly monarch of Makedonia and that there were/had been blood ties between the Makedonian & Epeirote royal houses (Alexander the Great was half-Molossian or half-Epeirote after all) it is entirely plausible the Makedonian nobility could have joined the royal corps under an Epeirote king.

[Maion Maroneios]

Well, about this Hypaspistai of Epeiros thing, let me tell you something. Proaspizo (ΠΡΟΑΣΠΙΖΩ) literally means "to guard" or "to protect" in Ancient Greek, the word Hypaspizo being yet another derivative. So it could merely refer to some Royal Guard unit, not necessarily a copy of the Makedonian equivalent.

Maion

[PriestLizard]

Didn't Pyrrhos' army consist only of mercenaries? So the Hypaspistai in his forces were probably just makedonian mercenaries? Or am I thinking the wrong way here?

Also I wonder: Did the Epeirote even have there own "armies" in a way the makedonians, seleucids or other successor-states had? I actually never read about it - it might be caused by the fact that its somewhat hard to find info about Epeiros except the time of Pyrrhos, who obviously only used mercenaries (thats what I heard at least).

Oh and I got another question: How did Pyrrhos strategies differ from the typical successor-tactics with phalangitai, skirmishers and flanking cavalry?

[keravnos]

Didn't Pyrrhos' army consist only of mercenaries?

No.

So the Hypaspistai in his forces were probably just makedonian mercenaries? Or am I thinking the wrong way here?

I think you are thinking the wrong way here. Makedonian mercenaries were pezheteroi pikemen.
Hypaspistai were the non mounted nobles. If Pyrrhos were the Makedonian king, -which happened twice- then those noblemen would be loyal to him.

Also I wonder: Did the Epeirote even have there own "armies" in a way the makedonians, seleucids or other successor-states had? I actually never read about it - it might be caused by the fact that its somewhat hard to find info about Epeiros except the time of Pyrrhos, who obviously only used mercenaries (thats what I heard at least).

well, it might come as a surprise but Epeiros was a kingdom which had imperial dreams. I don't see how that is possible without an army. There are other mentions of troops from Epeiros, but I agree they are hard to come by. Like I said, Pyrrhos didn't just use Mercenaries. There was a small loyal cadre of Epeirotes around him. Like the "choice men of the Chaonians" who, in assault infantry fashion tried to storm the barricades around Sparta but failed. I would suggest reading Diodorus Sikeliotes account of the battle of Ausculum for a greater description of troops of the Epeirote King.

For example. You must have read that Pyrrhos trained his own troops at Taras, the so called "Leukaspides", those were trained and armored "in the Makedonian way". Now, considering that Taras is an allied Epeirote city, an epeirote domain as it were, would you consider its troops mercenaries?

Pyrrhos used mercs, that much is certain but

Oh and I got another question: How did Pyrrhos strategies differ from the typical successor-tactics with phalangitai, skirmishers and flanking cavalry?[/QUOTE]

Pyrrhos' evolved phallanx was according to what I have read as following...
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=11
and how it works ingame,
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...7&postcount=12

the following is how Historyprof (nick tells all) managed his empire, in a historical way.

It's 230 BC and my Empire is all of Greece, Thrace, Mikra Skythia, Illyria, Southern Italy and Sicily, most of Western Anatolia, Crete and Rhodes.

The Germans are huge (huge), Arverni about to fall in Gaul to the Aedui, Hayasdan is expanding well, and Carthage is enormous and rich. Dacians doing well, and have a large army to keep the Germans out of the Danube (still rebel)... SO. Pontus is gone, as are the other Greeks.

My Molossian Empire: Nice and compact, easy to defend. I gave Galatia and Mazaka to the Arverni, and Kilikia to the Egyptians as a buffer against A.S. while I regroup. I expect them to fall eventually to the Gray Death, then I'll reconquer them later. My plan is to hold river crossings against the East in Anatolia, while I concentrate on those pesky Romans, and later hold the Po River valley against the Celts, Germans...

I usually field this against A.S.:

1 or 2x General
2x Heavy Cavalry (Molossian Agema or Hippeis Thessalikoi)
4 or 5x Chaonian Agema
5x Sphendonetai
4x Skuda Fat Horse Archers from Kallatis,
1 or 2x Tindanotae
1 or 2x Drapani from Tylis

This usually works pretty well. I run my Horse archers ragged, while getting my phalanx into a defensible position and then wear them down with slingers.

In Illyria, I use locals against the Romans:

General
6x Sphendonetai
6x Illyrioi Hippeis
6x Illyrioi Thorakitai--Now just Thorakitai--//You can use Illyrioi paraktioi if you want.
2x Drapani

Haven't quite figured out what to hit the Carthaginians with yet. In Sicily it is a mixed bag: Tarantine Cavalry, Lucanians, Phalanx, Slings... They still hold Lilibeo, and I haven't seen them field any impressive cavalry yet.

[keravnos]

Because even though those regions encompass the historical regions the Makedones occupied, troops like Pezhetairoi and such where only recruitable from urban populations, meaning the southern ones which where wealthier and more advanced.

Epeiros and Makedonia might be of similar ethnical origin (both of them Hellenes, or rather the ruling class from which the elites are trained), but they had different principles and ideals. They also advanced sepparetely, meaning they had their own troops, tactics and such. The Epeirotai may have copied Makedonian troops, but units like the Hypaspistai, Hetairoi and Pezhetairoi where only available to Makedones. The only thing the Epeirotai could do, was to copy such units, like the Molosson and Chaonion Agemata in EB.

Maion

Agree with most other than one.

the ruling class from which the elites are trained...
According to all we know, much more than the elites were Hellenes in both Makedonia and Epeiros. Makedonia's south, centre and west was almost exclusively hellenic. North and east was something else, with mostly Thraikian population interjected with army veterans' cities. Chalkidike was mixed as there were both Hellenic cities on the coast and Thraikian tribes in the interior. Thraikian coast was hellenic but the interior was Thraikian.--All those according to Hammond.

On Epeiros, Epigraphical and archaeological sources suggest that all 3 major Epeirote tribes, aka Chaones, Molossoi and Thesprotoi were Hellenic. Taulatians (the first of the Illyrian tribes stretching up to Venice) were on the north of the Chaones. There was deffinitely some interaction between them, as their king Glaukias adopted Pyrrhos, when he was sheltered there in his court. The exact amount of interaction between Illyrians and Epeirotes is not exactly known, so we can only speculate. There were however differences between the one and the other.--This, according to Hammond and other historians.

[Maion Maroneios]

Agree with most other than one.

the ruling class from which the elites are trained...
According to all we know, much more than the elites were Hellenes in both Makedonia and Epeiros.

That doesn't negate what I said, keravnos. I said the elites where recruited from the ruling classes (Makedones for Makedonia, Molossoi, Thesprotoi and Chaones for Epeiros), meaning the Hetairoi, Hypaspistai, Chaones and Molossian Agemata and the likes of them. You are saying that more than just elites where Hellenic, you're just stating extra info.

Maion

[PriestLizard]

Thanks for the competent answers - learned some new stuff again!

[keravnos]

That doesn't negate what I said, keravnos. I said the elites where recruited from the ruling classes (Makedones for Makedonia, Molossoi, Thesprotoi and Chaones for Epeiros), meaning the Hetairoi, Hypaspistai, Chaones and Molossian Agemata and the likes of them. You are saying that more than just elites where Hellenic, you're just stating extra info.

Maion

Ok, fair enough.
From that point on, this is the state of things as we know today.
Tomorrow some new evidence may turn up which will make us change what we now consider as historical.

Please, do NOT presume that because we try to understand through limited means what the states, nationalities or boundaries were back then, that this has anything to do with present situation now. A LOT has changed. It is 2200 years later.

For example according to Hammond, the "chosen chaones" that Pyrrhos had with him when he invaded Peloponnesos in 272 BCE are proof enough that there were a lot of Illyrians in Pyrrhos' army.

This is possible for two reasons.

1. He set up for Peloponnesos with 25.000 troops and 24 elephants. He returned from Italy with 8500 troops (out of the 30.000 he had left with). As a small part of Southern Illyria was under his command (up until Epidamnos) a big part of his troops must have been Illyrians. Another big part would have been Akarnanians and Amphilochians as both territories were under his crown at that time.

2. As I have posted earlier, Pyrrhos was called a "Tomb robber" by his contemporaries

Cynic philosopher Telles' work "On poverty" quoting a man from Borysthenes called Bion

for allowing his Celtic mercs to plunder Makedonian Kings' tombs. This means that not a lot of Makedones would have joined his troops, as they wouldn't be allowed to go back. This meant that some would have to be recruited in their stead. Illyrians would be part of those.

Besides, there was a special connection between Pyrrhos and the Illyrians. They did save his life and nurtured him and adopted him, Glaukias of the Taulantioi... More on the link,
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...08#post4082608

Now, so far as the Makedones are concerned, however Nationalistic some of my country men may be, they must allow for one fact. That the last kings of Makedonia recruited Thraikians en masse. They would be given plots of land to settle in, married to Makedonian women and then trained to serve in the Makedonian phallanx. Then, one generation later, their children would consider themselves Makedonian. There are tombs found in this area today, in which a Thraikian person is entombed (Seuthis-a Thraikian name) by his son who has a hellenic name.

If anything, Later day Makedonia must have had a "Byzantine-like" recruitment system, where it recruited its northern neighbours (and potential enemies), used them to defend itself and use their offspring a generation later as its own native troops. Phillipos V deffinitely used such a system.

[Anakuj]

keravnos,

could you give me please some advice on the works of N.G.L. Hammond? It seems to me, that he has many books/articles/papers, so I would really appreciate your helping hand!

On Amazon.co.uk there is a book, The Macedonian State: The Origins, Institutions and History, which seems to me as a summary, and it is more cheaper than his other works:

History of Macedonia: Historical Geography and Prehistory vol. 1
A History of Macedonia: 550-336 B.C. vol. 2
A History of Macedonia: 336-167 B.C. vol. 3

So... what do you think? And thank You!!!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Be careful of Hammond, to the perpetual shame of British Acedemia the destruction of his monolith began before his corpse was cold but, with that said, he was an overly positivistic historian with a bais towards the Greek Kings. His sythesis of the available evidence draws on diverse and often late sources, from which he produces a picture which is far too neat. As an introduction his "Macedonian State" is good, and I have used it in my own studies, but he needs to be treated with severity and caution.

[Anakuj]

Ah, I see. So than, could you please advice me a balanced work on the subject, if there is any? Thank you in advence!

[gamegeek2]

Notice how Hypaspistai can only be trained in historically "Makedonian" provinces (e.g. Pella, Demetrias)