Makedonia ad Eperios

**Maion Maroneios** · 12-08-2008, 18:31

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

**keravnos** · 12-08-2008, 23:11

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 12-08-2008, 23:28

Originally Posted by keravnos

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** · 12-08-2008, 23:57

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

**keravnos** · 12-09-2008, 17:26

Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios

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

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** · 12-10-2008, 16:20

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** · 12-10-2008, 16:42

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.