When drawing up our ancient armies, we too often forget that the troop types available to the originals were limited by the type of society for which they fought. An example of how social, economic and military developments went hand in hand can be taken from the rise and fall of the hoplite system in classical Greece. Before the rise of the hoplite, Greece was ruled by a landed aristocracy. The little wealth available came from agriculture and was concentrated in their hands. As only they could afford expensive equipment, the aristocrats formed a military elite which monopolised political power. Socially, the people were kept in agricultural serfdom.

As trade spread, wealth increased and a middle class grew up which could afford the costly panoply of war. Urban residents, used to cooperation, tended to favor a close order formation and hoplite equipment was developed to-cater to this formation. Political power followed on the heels of military potency. The middle classes raised up tyrants to lead them against the aristocrats.

After the tyrants had weakened the nobility and established law and order plus lasting prosperity, their usefulness was at an end and their high-handed authority was found to be burdensome.

They often hired mercenaries, sometimes barbarians, to maintain themselves against the disillusioned middle class, Gradually the various states replaced the Tyrranies with a "Democracy" which was limited to those possessing military power in the form of the hoplite panoply. This panoply had to be standardized to determine eligibility.

Rise of Mercenaries

As classical civilization declined, and expeditions were dispatched to far flung campaigns for long periods of time, the citizenry became increasingly unwilling to perform hoplite duty and the states began to replace citizen hoplites with mercenary hoplites.

As these mercenaries provided their own equipment in most cases and the equipment was not dictated by political considerations, the panoply tended to get lighter. As mercenaries were recruited largely from exiles, landless men and those in dire financial straits, often very little equipment was available. In this way the first Greek peltasts were organized. As these were full time soldiers they were more effective than the part time citizen hoplites. This accelerated the trend toward mercenary armies.

Finally, citizens were rarely called to arms except in times of great danger and then only for campaigns close to home. By the third century B.C., hoplites were a secondary military system used to supplement mercenaries. The citizen heavy infantryman enjoyed a brief revival under such leaders as Cleomenes III and Philipoemen in Macedonian style/like phalanxes before disappearing along with the freedom of Greece.

Macedonian Sarrissiphori

Thinking along these lines can help provide probable answers to military questions that cannot be answered by surviving literary and archeological sources. For example, the origin of the sarrissiphori of Alexander's army has been debated in the pages of Slingshot. It was questioned whether these horsemen were Macedonians or Thracians. The Thracian theory seems to rest largely on the statement of a much later historian that a certain notable Thracian was numbered among the sarrissiphori. This doesn't mean that these were Thracian units, however. No doubt many foreigners found their way into the elite mounted arm of the Macedonian army, a mark of the King's favor.

The Companions, themselves, received a horse from the King as a mark of rank. Lysimachus, Alexander's general and prominant among the Diodachi was a Thessalian. Those who believe them to be Macedonian rely mainly on the fact that the literary sources do not specifically number them among the Thracians or any other allies.

Now, first we must establish the type of soldier this was. From their use in battle, the general consensus of opinion is that they were light horsemen and I concur. This would seem to rule out identification with the Macedonians in the strictest sense for reasons given below.

The term Macedonian needs a stricter definition. The Macedonians of the coastal plains were a Greek Aristocracy ruling a peasantry of probably mixed Thracian and Illyrian stock. Gradually the Greek conquests extended their sway from the coastal plain to the surrounding hills. Their local dynasties, like the Lynkestid and Oretid families ruled by grace of the king, of the coastal plain and had more or less latitude according to his strength. These peasants were much closer culturally to the surrounding barbarians than to the inhabitants of the plains. It has even been suggested that the numerous Illyrian invasions of the classical period were called in and supported by rebelling Macedonian nobles in the outlying provinces.

The Companions were heavy cavalry recruited from among the Greek nobility both of the plains and the hills. The various units of the Macedonian army as organized by Philip were strongly tribal or territorially orientated. Philip hoped to blur these divisions by common service and to a certain extent he succeeded.

I believe the sarrisiphori to have been recruited from the upper classes of the hills (not the nobility). That they were armed with a Macedonian weapon suggests Macedonian nationality. A type of light cavalry would be useful along the borders to repel raiding Illyrians. It would be natural to recruit them from among the more warlike people of the border provinces. After Alexander's Indian war, the army was reorganized at Opis. The light cavalry were now provided by Asiatics. I believe the sarrisiphori to have been incorporated in the new, expanded companions. Their light mounts could be replaced by the excellent risean horses. This would help explain the large increase in numbers of companion cavalry at this time and also confirm the Macedonian nationality of the sarrisiphori. Little or no retraining would be necessary as they were already shock cavalry as indicated by their armament.