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

THE ARGEADS AND THE PHALANX 93
Halicarnassus, 9 and were likely to have enjoyed the confi dence of
their men. It is no wonder that they were the choice of the troops in
Sittacene.
Another more serious criticism concerns the fi gures. Nine chiliarchs
were appointed, implying a total of nine thousand men under
their command, too many for the hypaspists, the elite guard of the
king, and too few for the entire phalanx infantry. 10 But once again
we are jumping to conclusions. Curtius does not state that only
nine chiliarchs were appointed. The names he gives are those of the
men whom the troops elected to offi ce. 11 It is quite possible that
Alexander reserved a number of chiliarchies for himself, so that he
could counteract any populist movement in the ranks. If the king’s
chiliarchs balanced the elective offi cers it would give a paper
strength of eighteen thousand, a fi gure that is consistent with most
estimates of army numbers at this period. It would seem, then, that
there was a reorganization that resulted in the creation of a new
step in the hierarchy: the old pentakosiarchs continued with their
old names and their current commands, but they were subordinate
to newly formed chiliarchs who were elected by the commons.
Though Arrian does not explicitly say so, it seems clear that it was
Alexander who decided which pentakosiarchies should be combined
as chiliarchies. The scheme would be reminiscent of Cleisthenes’
trittyes in Athens and presumably had similar motives, to
separate senior commanders from their regional power base and
bring together units of different origins under offi cers of lower
social status.
The one diffi cult objection to Curtius’ account comes from Arrian’s
description of the siege of Halicarnassus (1.22.7). This deals
with a certain Adaeus, who died repelling a sortie by the defenders.
Arrian explicitly terms him chiliarch, 12 and so contradicts Curtius’
statement that chiliarchies were fi rst introduced at the competition
in Sittacene. How, then, can Adaeus have been a chiliarch if the command
did not as yet exist? One possibility is that Adaeus did in fact
command a chiliarchy, but it was not a unit of Macedonians. That is
unlikely, as Arrian repeatedly states that the contingent in which
Adaeus served was Macedonian. I think it more likely that Arrian is
inadvertently misleading. His focus, as always, is the achievement of
Alexander, who effortlessly disposes of the sortie that threatens his
siege engines. 13 However, it is clear that the source for the episode
wrote up Adaeus’ exploit in some detail, for it is represented as a brilliant
Macedonian victory, disastrous for the Halicarnassians. 14 This
battle account could well have given details of Adaeus’ command. It
may have been a temporary measure, combining two pentakosiarchies