Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

92 PHILIP AND ALEXANDER AT WAR
older brother Alexander had given the Macedonian infantry a wholly
new structure. Instead of a rabble, disorganized and ineffective, there
emerged a disciplined army that fought en masse in defi ned military
units. The new organization brought military success, which in turn
engendered an esprit de corps that was indispensable for the victories
of Alexander. The system was not static. Philip and Alexander did
not rest on their laurels, but used their armies to break down the ties
of regional loyalty between the nobility and their retainers. It was a
problem addressed by both monarchs, and for Alexander we have an
explicit, if much contested, passage of Curtius Rufus (5.2.6): “in the
interest of military discipline he made several advantageous changes
from ancestral practice.” He then gives an example, set in the context
of Alexander’s stay in Sittacene, late in the Julian year 331. The cavalry,
recently reinforced, were to be given commanders chosen for
their excellence irrespective of their ethnic origins. 2 That is precisely
what Arrian (3.16.11) states in exactly the same context, 3 and there is
certainly a common source. That common source also deals with the
infantry. According to Arrian the six thousand infantry reinforcements
4 were allotted to the existing battalions on the basis of their
ethnic origins. Curtius agrees in principle, but gives a vivid picture of
a competition for high command. In particular, he states that a new
formation of one thousand troops was created, the so-called chiliarchy;
and he adds that there had previously been units of fi ve hundred
(quingenariae cohortes). He states that nine chiliarchs were appointed
and gives their names. 5 The eighth is missing, and almost certainly it
has fallen out through manuscript corruption. Apart from this omission
the text seems sound. It is lucid, and there is nothing in the
context that is suspicious. Nonetheless, there has been persistent and
perverse reluctance to accept Curtius’ plain statement. 6 There is no
evidence, it is said, for the existence of pentakosiarchs before the
competition in Sittacene. This is true, but there is no evidence after
the competition until we reach Alexander’s last days, when pentakosiarchs
and chiliarchs share the vigil before the royal bedchamber.
The source for this is the royal Ephemerides (Arr. 7.25.6; Plut. Alex.
76.6), and however suspect the document may be as propaganda, 7 it
cannot be wrong about a detail witnessed by so many contemporary
observers. Another criticism focuses on the men honored by election
as chiliarchs, who seem to be too obscure for such a high command.
True enough—up to a point. However, it could be argued that the men
elected were meant to be obscure. Their election excluded the general
staff from some of the most prestigious commands in the army. 8 And
there is no doubt that they were competent leaders. Atarrhias the oneeyed
and Hellanicus had distinguished themselves at the siege of