LAS ÓRDENES MILITARES

In sum, Macedonian borders were fluid because of natural features and the temperament of other peoples in the region. To preserve a political identity would demand constant military vigilance.

However, by comparison with the military capability of its neigh-bors, Macedon was seriously disadvantaged. As mentioned above, Philip levied a force of approximately 10,600 infantry and cavalry in 359. Inasmuch as the threat of the Illyrians was of momentous consequences, it is likely that Philip raised as large a force as possi-ble. By contrast, we have noted that Xerxes levied a force of one quarter of a million for his campaign against Greece. Even the single polis of Athens had a citizen population of between 45,000 and 60,000 adult males, that is, hoplites, in the mid-fifth century. To deal with challenges from the sea, a Macedonian navy was virtually non-existent well into the reign of Philip. By comparison, Athens alone contributed 200 or more triremes to the united Greek naval force against the Persian invasion in 480.

The early social structure of the Macedonian kingdom increased its weakness as a unified, powerful entity. The majority of the pop-ulation was accustomed to life in dispersed villages, garnering a livelihood through herding, agriculture, fishing, and hunting. In the smaller regions that were eventually united under the control of an Argead ruler, aristocratic families akin to the Argeads directed the collective life of residents in their sphere of influence. To maintain their own positions and to preserve the independence of their realms, the heads of these families required sufficient wealth and military might. That many of them were able to retain these req-uisites to power is shown in the history of centralization in the region: unification was not a natural or trouble-free process, since loyalties to important families persisted. Even when centralization was underway, regions could and did break away. During the reign of Perdikkas (454–413), the region of Lynkestis in upper Macedonia was autonomous and efforts to reunite it with lower Macedonia were unsuccessful. The leader of the separatist

movement, Arrhabaios, was able to raise a force of combined infantry and cavalry; to defeat that army required a force of 3,000 Greek infantry, all the Macedonian cavalry, 1,000 Chalkidians, and a “great throng of barbarians” (Thukydides IV.124). Loss of regional contingents would be a serious detriment to Macedonia’s capabil-ity to defend itself and, indeed, a coalition of regional leaders would likely destroy every semblance of unity.

In the absence of Macedonian documents describing the nature of society, scholars often look to Homeric society for an analogy.

In the Iliad and Odyssey, one man exercises greater authority than his peers. Agamemnon is the acknowledged leader of the Greek effort to take Troy, while Odysseus’ elevated position in the island kingdom is the cause of the unhappy situation that has worsened during his 20-year absence from his realm. However, neither Agamemnon nor Odysseus enjoys absolute power: Agamemnon cannot prevent the angry departure of Achilles from the war effort, and Odysseus must slaughter all the aspirants for his position before he can reclaim it. In sum, a king must be able to assert his right to rule by physical means. The story of the Argeads is strikingly similar.

In the circumstances at the time Philip became king, rival claimants existed in three stepbrothers, the infant son of his older brother Perdikkas, and members of other branches of the Argead line. Like Agamemnon, an Argead king could not prevent a leader theoreti-cally allied with him from withdrawing, and like Odysseus, Philip removed rivals by physical force.

So also does the role of the non-aristocratic element of Macedo-nia resemble that of the ordinary men in the Greek force camped near Troy, who, although they are present at gatherings of the entire force, are expected only to listen to the words of their leaders and occasionally shout their approval. The single ordinary man who speaks out at Troy is quickly beaten for his brashness. Though the fellows of the beaten man are sorry for his plight, they collectively feel “Never again will a haughty spirit rouse him to quarrel with the basileis in reproachful words” (Iliad II.276–7). Akin to the mass of Achaians “who are no account in battle or counsel” at Troy,

non-aristocratic Macedonians comprise an assembly, an army assem-bly that has certain rights: acclamation of their kingly leader and deci-sion-making in treason trials. While some modern scholars doubt the importance and regular practice of these rights, they may well have been in place in early Macedonian history in the form of the same rough, spontaneous gatherings that the Homeric epics describe. Even though ties existed with ruling families in upper Macedonia, albeit often tenuous, there was little to forge a bond between the non-elite living some distance from the core of lower Macedonia. Lynkestians would appreciate, and perhaps fear, the power of the Lynkestian royal family far more than that of the ruling Argead, a situation echoed in the several other once-independent states.

If the kingdom of Macedon were to survive, and much more if it were to become a major player in affairs of the Balkan-Aegean region, elimination of its vulnerabilities was essential. The first need was for strong defense of its territory and resources; in other words, the creation of a strong, stable military arm. Since threats regularly came from all directions the force must be large and, at unpre-dictable times of the year, ready manpower must be constantly avail-able. The core region of Macedon was insufficient in resources and manpower to meet the array of threats and to provide a standing force. It is estimated that an army of between 8,000 and 10,000 constituted the Macedonian force before the time of Philip II. Thus, when the Thracians under Sitalkes attacked Macedonia in 429 with an army of 15,000 men of which 5,000 were cavalry, Perdikkas refused to engage in battle because of the disproportion of forces (Thukydides II.98.3 and II.100.5). Reassertion of alliances with at least the adjacent ring of kingdoms was needed to secure the support of both aristocratic and non-aristocratic elements: ordinary free men to provide the bulk of the infantry, and aristocratic fam-ilies to contribute the cavalry branch of the army as well as the corps of its officers. The difficulty of the task is shown in the amount of time required to achieve it. Certain steps were taken in the fifth century, but it was only in the reign of Philip II that the loyalty of the people and the aristocracy was more secure.

Somewhat paradoxically, the inherent weakness of fluid bound-aries seems to have been the key to a solution. Illyrian attacks from the northwest and Paionian incursions from the north would pass through regions of upper Macedonia en route to lower Macedonia, while Greek hoplite forces could harass the peoples of Elimeia and Pieria as they marched toward Pella. A sense of common danger combined with alliances in the past may well have prompted a per-ception that some type of union might be in the best interests of the entire region. Moreover, degrees of unification had occurred in the past when the force of centralization had been in lower Macedonia.

Another force for cooperation may have been kinship amongst the peoples of upper and lower Macedonia by the fifth and fourth centuries. As Harry Dell described the geography of the region, its heartland was the Macedonian plain. Beyond the first natural barrier, the Bermion mountain range, the Makednian groups that initially had inhabited the valleys and mountains were only later replaced by the Illyrians. The success of the Illyrian incursion in 360 stirred up more threats in the north as Paionians began to pillage in the upper Axios river valley. The combination may well have been a spur to the unification of the Makednians – if only temporarily. A strong leader might fashion a more lasting union.