Philip II and transformation of macedonia

2 Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia: A Reappraisal Edward M. Anson University of Arkansas, Little Rock Philip II, ruler of Macedonia from 359-336 BCE, followed the typical pattern of a Macedonian king: he rewarded his supporters. Spear-won land and booty, these were the means by which a monarch cemented his relationship to his people.1 This was certainly part of the traditional hetairos relationship. Macedonian kings gave their aristocratic “cavalry companions” vast tracts of land (FGrH 115 F-225B; Plut. Alex. 15.3-6),2 and this aspect of the tradition was extended to the heavy infantry when they became the pezhetairoi, or “foot companions.”3 A successful Macedonian king ruled through patronage. Philip differed in one respect from earlier rulers. He was by far the most successful Macedonian king down to his time and, as a consequence, had far more land and financial resources with which to be generous. Thanks early in his reign to the defeat of Bardylis and many of Illyrian’s erstwhile aristocratic Macedonian allies, especially those in Upper Macedonia,4 Philip was in the position to treat much of his realm as “spear-won” land.5 As he supposedly proclaimed to the Athenians with respect to his possession of Amphipolis, it was his “by the right of conquest in war” (Dem. 12.22). His son Alexander was later to claim all of Asia as his by the same right of conquest (Diod. 17.17.2; Justin 11.5.10). For Philip the key to his power and ultimately that of Macedonia itself was the breaking of personal ties between the rulers/ landlords of much of Macedonia and their dependent populations, and replacing these bonds with attachments to himself.6 (Philip)Through extensive grants of land to individuals, created a manpower pool of both cavalry and heavy infantry. With land he not only rewarded his supporters and built a new army, but he also in the process transformed Macedonia. 18 Edward M. Anson It is the contention of this paper that Philip changed Macedonia in terms of its wealth, military manpower, urbanization, and centralization as a direct result of his distribution of land especially to the rural poor, the tenant farmers and hired pastoralists. In particular, Philip converted what had been almost exclusively a dependent population of herdsmen and tenants into a nation containing tens of thousands of loyal landowners. One result of this transformation, and most likely its intended outcome, was that under Philip the Macedonian cavalry grew to more than five times its size under his predecessors, and the Macedonian infantry appeared virtually out of nowhere (Diod. 16.3.1-2).7 Ultimately, Philip created a military force of at least 3,300 cavalry and 24,000 infantry.8 These holders of King’s land became “citizen soldiers” (stratioton politikon) (Diod. 18.12.2). Many have examined Philip’s achievement from the perspective of creating political unity through his military reforms,9 building an army-based state,10 generating an economic metamorphosis based on the exploitation of royal monopolies,11 or shaping a constitutional revolution,12 but his most revolutionary act was social and psychological. In transforming many thousands of peasants and herdsmen into land-owning Macedonians, he created a confident and exceedingly loyal population, loyal both to the individual monarch who had given them their land and who had defended their possession of it, but also to the institution of monarchy itself.13 As Billows notes with respect to the later Hellenistic monarchs, the granting of land was “a powerful inducement to future loyalty.”14 The importance of land to a rural population has not changed from Antiquity to the modern day. The desire for land on the part of the landless or the small landowner encumbered by debt or obligation has sparked revolution across the centuries. Peter Brunt has demonstrated that it played a significant role in the so-called Roman Revolution that saw the overthrow of the Republic and the installation of the regime of Augustus,15 and it has become a truism among commentators on modern rural revolutions that what the peasants want is unemcumbered land, and that they very often employ violence to obtain it.16 In a purported Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia 19 speech to his troops at Opis (Arr. Anab. 7.9.2), Alexander III stated: “Philip found you wandering and poor, wearing goatskins and grazing a few goats on the mountains . . . he brought you down from the mountains to the plains . . . and made you dwellers in cities.” While the speech has been questioned from a number a perspectives,17 and certainly is not a verbatim transcription, it should be regarded—if not as an accurate reflection of an actual speech—at least as a partially correct summary of Philip’s achievement.18 John Ellis and Richard Billows write that most Macedonians held a status akin to that of the Thessalian penestai or of the Spartan helots.19 In the respective Hellenistic states in Asia there were the laoi; these individuals were part of the indigenous population, as distinct from the Macedonian/ Greek settlers. Greeks had often created serf-like populations from those conquered in foreign lands,20 and both Aristotle (Pol. 7.1330a 25-31) and Isocrates (3.5; cf., 4.131) encouraged making “barbarians” into serfs for the Greeks. The Milesians turned the native Mariandynians into serfs when they colonized Heraclea on the Pontus (Pl. Leg. 6.776 c-d; Strabo 12.3.4; Athen. 6.263c-d),21 and the Megarians had enslaved the local Bithynians in the foundation of Byzantium (FGrH 81.F-8).22 Likewise, the penestai and the Spartan helots were believed to be a “foreign” element by the “free” population (Thuc. 1.101.2; FGrH 87 F-8; Athen. 6.284).23 Even though there is no reference to a distinct subject class in Macedonia, Ellis’s and Billow’s conclusion would appear likely, especially with respect to Upper Macedonia. Here the neighboring Illyrian Dardanians and Ardians had subject populations who apparently tilled the soil (Athen. 6.272d; 10.443c).24 Macedonia’s dependent class, however, probably had more in common with the hektemoroi and the pelatai of Solonian Athens (Ath. Pol. 2.2),25 than with Thessalian penestai or Spartan helots. The Macedonian practice historically had been to exterminate or expel conquered populations (Thuc. 2.99.3-6).26 While foreign slaves may have been in some quantity during and after the reign of Philip II,27 the dependent pastoralists and farmers freed from this status by Philip were poor Macedonians themselves, not a subject, conquered population, real or imagined. Alexander’s army in 20 Edward M. Anson Asia did contain lixae and calones (Curt. 6.8.23),28 but inscriptional documentation provides no evidence of racial differentiation in the Macedonian population. Individuals are most often listed simply by their name, or by their name and patronymic; sometimes by their name, patronymic, and their city; occasionally by name, patronymic, and the ethnic “Macedonian;” and less often by name and Macedonian ethnic only.29 As concluded by Janice Gabbert with respect to such evidence from Antigonid Macedonia, there is no indication of “different classes of citizenship.”30 The evidence also strongly suggests that the common citizenry in Philip II’s urban foundations enjoyed complete equality, and even in his re-foundations no distinction was drawn between the new and old citizens.31 Urbanization clearly did accelerate during Philip’s reign.32 While Xenophon describes Pella in 383 BCE as the largest city in Macedonia (Hell. 5.2.13), Strabo (7. frg 20) later comments that prior to Philip II it was a “small city.” Philip is also recorded as founding “strong cities at key locations” in Thrace (Diod. 16.71.2; Dem. 8.44), and along his frontier with Illyria (Dem. 4.48).33 In Thrace, there are references to Philippopolis (FGrH 115 F-110; Pliny NH 4.18), Drongilus, Calybe, and Mastira (Dem. 8.44; Str. 7.6.320C). Alexander, while acting as regent, founded his own city, Alexandropolis, with a mixed population in Thrace (Plut. Alex. 9.1).34 Additionally, many Greek cities along the coast became part of the kingdom during Philip II’s reign (Diod. 16.8.2-3).35 The population of cities would frequently be augmented by the incorporation of Macedonians, or by settlers from surrounding areas, into the existing population (Dem. 18.182).36 Philip captured the Thasian colony of Crenides (Diod. 16.3.7) in 356, and refounded it as Philippi.37 Its acquisition is mentioned without a hint of a siege or the expulsion of any of its citizens, but it is noted that Philip increased its population (Diod. 16.8.6, 3.7). There is no mention of the origin of these new settlers, but Griffith may well be correct that they came from the surrounding area and, perhaps, included numbers of Chalcidians,38 but it is also likely that many Macedonians were included as well. Previously, in 357, when Amphipolis Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia 21 was betrayed to Philip, much of the population of Amphipolis remained and was subsequently supplemented by a large number of Macedonian settlers (cf., Diod. 16.8.2; Dem. 18.182; Aeschin. 3.27).39 Miltiades Hatzopoulos has shown through an examination of deeds of sale from Amphipolis that Macedonians from both Upper and Lower Macedonia became settlers in Amphipolis.40 A similar situation was apparently also true with respect to Pydna.41 Certainly much can be made of Philip’s city foundations and refoundations, but the evidence suggests that the vast majority of Upper Macedonians continued to live in villages, and hence individuals from these areas were denoted by their regional designations.42 Yet, at least three of the six heavy infantry battalions came from this area (Diod. 17.57.2). When Methone was captured and razed to the ground, Philip distributed its land among the “Macedonians” (Diod. 16.34.5; cf., Dem. 4.35; Justin 7.6.14-16). Viritane distribution probably was most often the case in Upper Macedonia—land was given out to Macedonians, but not always as part of city foundations. The evidence is very clear that Philip gave extensive land holdings to prominent members of his hetairoi.43 Nearchus, Laomedon, and Androsthenes are all later associated in Arrian’s listing of Alexander’s Indus River fleet commanders with Amphipolis (Ind. 18.4), and listed as Macedonians. None, however, was native to Macedonia. Androsthenes was from Thasos;44 Laomedon, from Mytilene;45 and Nearchus, from Crete.46 Further, one of the cavalry squadrons employed by Alexander was listed as from Amphipolis as well (Arr. Anab. 1.2.5). While this squadron might represent the original Amphipolitan cavalry, it more likely was composed of Macedonians who had been given land in the area by the king.47 Even though no cavalry group is listed as from Pydna, prominent Macedonians were given land near that city as well (cf., Arr. Ind. 18.5).48 Those aristocrats and prominent foreigners who had joined willingly with Philip at the start of his reign or who had joined him later were granted land from the king’s cache of royal land apparently in areas distant from their ancestral holdings. Leonnatus is referred to as from Pella (Arr. Ind. 18. 3), but was in fact a native Lyncestian.49 22 Edward M. Anson But it was not only noble Macedonian allies and important non Macedonian hetairoi who received grants of land. As the passage from Arrian, quoting Alexander concerning his father indicates, many new landholders came from the landless class of Macedonia. While it is certain that herding did not disappear from the Macedonian landscape, Philip, however, did liberate tens of thousands of such individuals from their landlords. After Philip’s acquisition of Amphipolis, in addition to the extensive grants of land to prominent members of the Macedonian aristocracy (cf., Arr. Ind. 18.4), land was also given to a broad range of non-aristocratic Macedonians.50 G. T. Griffith has argued that, when Methone was destroyed and its land given out to “Macedonians” (Diod. 16.34. 5; cf., Dem. 4.35; Justin 7.6.14-16), these recipients were ordinary Macedonians, not aristocrats.51 This was probably also the case with Apollonia, Olynthus, and thirty-two other communities in or near Thrace (Dem. 9.26; cf., Diod. 16.53.3; cf., Justin 8.3.1415).52 These towns and villages are associated by Demosthenes with Methone as having been destroyed by Philip, and while he does not state that the land was given to Macedonians, it would—given the example of Methone—appear likely. Philip did reward soldiers with “worthy gifts” (Diod. 16.53.3),53 and he distributed land to Macedonians near Potidaea (Syll.3 1.332).54 This inscription records the renewal of land grants that were made during the reigns of Philip and Alexander by the then-monarch Cassander. Another inscription records Alexander’s gift to the “Macedonians” of the Bottiaean towns of Calindoea, Thamiscia, Camacaea, and Tripoatis.55 After the battle on the Granicus, and probably as a general practice with regard to war casualties, Alexander remitted for the families of the Macedonian dead all property taxes and personal liabilities (Arr. Anab. 1.16.5; cf., Diod. 17.21.6). At Opis, Alexander, referring to those who had died on the long campaign in general, stated that “their parents have been freed from all services and taxes” (Arr. Anab. 7.10.4). Helmut Berve and most recently Miltiades Hatzopoulos have pointed out that the remission of tax indicated that the dead and their families held royal land,56 thus confirming that land was held by common Macedonian Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia 23 soldiers, as well as by aristocrats. The practice of granting land in return for either infantry or cavalry service was certainly a common practice in the Hellenistic period.57 While these lands could be inherited, bought, and sold, they were still subject to repossession by the king.58 This was apparently true of all land. Even though Hatzopoulos asserts that this revocability was true only of “royal land,” not of land that became associated with a city or “city land,”59 Billows argues effectively that the king retained “at least a limited right of ‘eminent domain’ over the land granted to the colonists of [a] city.”60 This is certainly borne out by the ability of Macedonian monarchs to transfer populations almost at will. During Philip’s reign there were numerous forced movements of peoples into and within Macedonia (Justin 8.5.7 - 8.6.1; Polyaen. 4.2.12).61 More than a century later, Philip V transferred Macedonians and their families from the “chief cities” of Macedonia to Emathia and replaced them with Thracians and “barbarians” (Polyb. 23.10.4-7). Earlier, Amyntas had offered the entire region of Anthemus, in western Mygdonia, to Hippias as a gift (Hdt. 5.94.1). Philip II ceded the same region briefly to the Olynthians (Dem. 6.20), but later it supplied one of Alexander’s cavalry squadrons (Arr. Anab. 2.9.3.). An important effect of the granting of land was the creation of loyalty among these new upland Macedonian landowners —to Philip in particular, and to the lowland kings in general. Given Upper Macedonia’s history of practical independence from the Argead monarch, it is curious that after Philip II’s annexation of Upper Macedonia (Diod. 16.8.1; cf., 16.1.5) right up to the Roman conquest, there is only one attested regional revolt of an area roughly corresponding to a former Upper Macedonian kingdom, and that, if it occurred at all, took place in 197 BCE (Polyb. 18.47.6), one-and-a-half centuries after its annexation.62 If these areas had retained any sense of loyalty to their former rulers, it is very unlikely that Alexander would have brigaded troops from Upper Macedonia according to their old kingdom (Diod. 17.57.2).63 But landowners, created by his father, would be very loyal to their benefactor’s successor. 24 Edward M. Anson With respect to Philip and Alexander, the troops’ loyalty appears more closely connected to their regard for Philip than to that for his son.64 When in difficulties with his soldiers at Opis, Alexander reminded them that Philip had brought them prosperity, safety, and power (Arr. Anab. 7.9.1-5). In the disturbance in Babylon after the great conqueror’s death, the troops turned not to Alexander’s offspring, nor to his generals, but rather to Alexander’s half-brother, Philip’s son Arrhidaeus (Curt. 10.7.1-10), who immediately after his elevation to the throne changed his name to Philip (Curt. 10.7.7; Diod. 18.2.4). A similar situation occurred with Cynane, Philip’s daughter and Alexander’s half-sister. In 321, she had raised her own Macedonian troops (Polyaen. 8.60), and led them to Asia, where she demanded a marriage between her daughter Adea and the new king, Philip III, the former Arrhidaeus.65 When Cynane was murdered, the royal army rioted and forced their leaders to acquiesce to the marriage.66 Her connection to Philip II is clear, but that to Alexander is ephemeral at best. After her marriage, Adea changed her name to Eurydice, which was the name of Philip II’s mother.67 In her new role, Adea/Eurydice’s personal influence was profound. She sparked riots in the royal army (Arr. Succ. 1.31; Diod. 18.39.1-2), and was even briefly the regent for Macedonia (Justin 14.5.1-3; Diod. 19.11.1). During Philip’s reign, tens of thousands of formerly landless men were given land. While a few of the inhabitants of the cities and villages continued as herdsmen, the predominant occupation of city-dwellers was farming. Greek animal husbandry in general appears not to have been a sedentary activity, but a transhumant one.68 Philip, by his actions both inside and outside of Macedonia, apparently gained a reputation as a friend of the common man. Polyaenus (4.2.19) reports that Philip was “a friend to the people,” and Strabo (9.5.19; cf., FGrH 115 F-81) has this monarch freeing the penestai of Perrhaebia from the control of Larisa and eliminating their tribute.69 Within Macedonia, Philip began immediately upon his accession to the throne to reward soldiers with land. Billows estimates the overall population of Philip’s kingdom as between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000.70 His analysis, while based Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia 25 on a number of assumptions, appears to yield a fair estimate. If roughly one fourth of this total were eligible for military service, or 250,000 to 375,000 men, then Philip’s grants could potentially have gone to between ten and fifteen percent of the families of Macedonia.71 A significant number, but the vast majority of Macedonians at the time of Philip’s death would still have remained in some form of tenancy or serfdom.72 This is clear from the large number of Macedonians during and after Philip’s reign who controlled vast territories and the people inhabiting these lands. Plutarch (Alex. 15.3; cf., Justin 11.5.5) reports that Alexander gave to various members of his hetairoi farms and villages. Theopompus (FGrH 115 F-225B) reports, probably with much exaggeration, that 800 of Philip’s hetairoi possessed as much land as 10,000 of the richest Greeks. Aside from the military and political implications of Philip’s land grants, the economic and social changes would have been great. Hammond argues for an economic revolution during Philip’s reign, involving a change from transhumance to agriculture, the reclamation of land for cultivation rather than for livestock, an increase in the labor force as a by-product of territorial expansion, and the emergence of cities.73 All of these are at least in part true, but Philip’s revolution involved much more. Much of the economic transformation was the result of the efforts of these new landowners. Non land-owning agricultural workers are not likely to make significant improvements to the land they work.74 They tend to plant annual crops, not those that require years of nurture before they become productive.75 Now, these new Macedonian landowners had a vested interest in improvement. Additionally, their new wealth gave them the wherewithal to equip themselves as the new Macedonian heavy infantry, but more importantly the desire to do so. Protecting their king now meant also protecting their lands. In the final analysis, Philip transformed Macedonia in ways not even he could have imagined. 26 Edward M. Anson NOTES 1. A. E. Samuel, “Philip and Alexander as Kings: Macedonian and Merovingian Parallels,” AHR 93 (1988) 1276; cf., R. A. Billows, Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 137; E. N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1990) 215. 2. G. S. Stagakis, “Institutional Aspects of the Hetairos Relation” (Madison: Unpub. Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1962). 3. Philip early in his reign extended the traditional hetairos relationship to infantry soldiers (pezhetairoi), at first to his infantry “bodyguard,” but later to his entire heavy infantry, thus strengthening the personal bond with these troops. The identity of the king actually extending the relationship to the infantry is disputed, but see the discussion and argumentation for Philip in E. M. Anson, Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek Among Macedonians (Leiden: Brill, 2004) 226-30. 4. J. R. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976) 48, 55-9; N. G. L. Hammond and G. T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia: Volume II, 550-336 B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) 216, 650-52; Borza, 1990, 210-11; cf., N. G. L. Hammond, Philip of Macedon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1994) 26-7. 5. In general with respect to “spear-won” land, see B. Funck, “Zu den Landschenkungen hellenistischer Könige,” Klio 60 (1978) 45-55; A. Mehl, “Doroktetos Chora,” Ancient Society 10/11 (1980/81) 173-212. 6. These attachments came in part through the creation of the pezhetairoi (see note 3). 7. With respect to cavalry, in 358 Philip had 600 horsemen (Diod. 16.4.3). Alexander crossed to Asia with 1800 Macedonian cavalry (Diod. 17.17.4), having left 1500 behind in Macedonia (Diod. 17.17.5). While Alexander may have added some numbers to the forces he inherited from his father, it is clear that this was basically the army assembled by his father. See W. Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire (London: Routledge, 1992) 3, passim. Prior to Philip’s reign the Macedonian army contained but few heavy infantry soldiers (Thuc. 2.100.5, 124. 1; Xen. Hell. 5.2.38 - 3.6). 8. At Chaeronea Philip’s army contained “not less than 2000 cavalry” and 30,000 infantry (Diod. 16.85.5). Alexander took 1800 Macedonian cavalry and 12,000 Macedonian infantry with him to Asia (Diod. 17. 17. 3-4), leaving behind in Macedonia 1500 cavalry and 12,000 infantry with his regent Antipater (Diod. 17.17.5). There was also an advance force in Asia, but its size and composition are unknown (Diod. 16.91.2; Just. 9.5.8; Polyaen. 5.44.4). 9. Ellis, 1976, 8, 231. Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia 27 12. M. B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings: I. A Historical and Epigraphic Study. II. Epigraphic Appendix. Melethemata 22 (Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation, 1996) 1: 270-71. 13. Early modern rulers often sided or pretended to side with their peasantry against the aristocratic landlords, and these small land holders often became staunch supporters of the royal regime. See H. Rebel, Peasant Classes: The Bureaucratization of Property and Family Relations Under Early Habsburg Absolutism, 1511-1636 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1983) 3-4. 14. Billows, 1995, 132-7. Billows, however, sees this loyalty as stemming from the inherent revocability of the royal grants (see below). 15. “The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution,” The Fall of the Roman Republic, ed. P. Brunt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) 240-75. 16. S. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1968) 375; R. Prosterman and J. M. Riedinger, Land Reform and Democratic Development (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1987) 10; J. S. Migdal, Peasants, Politics, and Revolution; Pressures Toward Political and Social Change in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1974) 158-9, 201. For specific studies, see especially, N. Harvey, The Chiapas Rebellion: The Struggle for Land and Democracy (Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1998), and N. Wiegersma, Vietnam: Peasant Land, Peasant Revolution. Patriarchy and Collectivity in the Rural Economy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1988). 17. For example, F. R. Wüst, “Die Rede Alexanders des Grosswen in Opis,” Historia 2 (1953/4) 177-88; E. Carney, “Macedonians and Mutiny: Discipline and Indiscipline in the Army of Philip and Alexander,” CP 91 (1996) 29, 33, 38. 18. The most enthusiastic defense of the speech as a basically accurate account of what was said and what had indeed occurred is to be found in N. G. L. Hammond, “The Speeches in Arrian’s Indica and Anabasis,” CQ 49 (1999) 249-50, see also A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1988) 133; G. L. Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon (London: Faber, 1978) 17-18. More recently, D. B. Nagle, “The Cultural Context of Alexander’s Speech at Opis,” TAPA 126 (1996) 151-172, has declared that “the substance of the speech was spoken by Alexander at Opis” (152), but that it was a piece of propaganda summarizing the “offical version of Philip’s reign” (153, cf., 169-70). 19. Ellis, 1976, 27; Billows, 1995, 9-10, 136-37, 200-1. 20. H. van Wees, “Conquerors and serfs: Wars of conquest and forced labour,” Helots and their masters in Laconia and Messenia: Histories, ideologies, structures, eds. N. Luraghi and S. E. Adcock (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2003) 34. 21. J. Ducat, Les Hilotes (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1990) 31-3. 10. Billows, 1995, 15-20. 22. Ducat, 1990, 35. 11. N. G. L. Hammond, 1979 2: 658-74; The Macedonian State: The Origins, Institutions and History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) 177-87; “Philip’s Innovations in the Macedonian Economy,” Symb. Osl. 70 (1995) 22-9. 23. Yvon Garlan, Slavery in Ancient Greece (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1988) 95. 24. See Garlan, 1988, 104. 28 Edward M. Anson Philip II and the Transformation of Macedonia 29 25. While both Dionysus of Halicarnassus (2.9.2) and Plutarch (Rom. 13.5) equate Roman clients or plebeians with Athenian thetes/pelatai and/or Thessalian penestai, their comparisons imply only a similarity in terms of bondage. Appian’s meaning of pelatai in his Roman context is clients (BC 4.4.18, 19; Hisp. 14.84). 44. H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich: Beck, 1926; repr., New York: Arno Press, 1973) 2:40, no. 80); Laomedon, from Mytilene (Heckel, 1992, 211); and Nearchus, Crete (Heckel, 1992, 228). 26. Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 170-71. 46. Ibid. 1992, 228. 27. Philip did on occasion enslave conquered people (Diod. 16.8.5, 53.3; cf., Paus. 5.23.3). Justin (9.2.15) records the capture of 20,000 Scythian women and children by Philip. While these (praeda) are later lost (Just. 9.3.3), this probably reflects a not uncommon practice (Just. 8.3.2-3). 47. See Hammond and Griffith, 1979 2: 352. 28. It is very possible that many of these were acquired in Asia since the passage in Curtius is associated with the trial of Philotas in 330, and Alexander had likely limited the number of servants in the army that had initially crossed to Asia. See D. W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1978) 12. 29. Hatzopoulos, 1996 2: passim. 30. J. Gabbert, “The Language of Citizenship in Antigonid Macedonia,” AHB 2 (1988): 10-11. 31. Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 182. A similar policy of equality was pursued by Philip and Alexander in the ranks of their hetairoi (see E. Badian, “Greeks and Macedonians.” Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Studies in the History of Art 10, ed. B. Barr-Sharrar and E. Borza [Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1982] 39). 32. See Ellis, 1976, 34; Billows, 1995, 9-11; N. G. L. Hammond, “The Macedonian imprint on the Hellenistic world,” in Hellenistic History and Culture, ed. P. Green (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1993) 19-20. 33. Hammond, 1979 2: 654. 34. See Hammond and Griffith, 1979, 2: 558. 35. The relationship between the coastal cities and the Macedonian kings was complicated. Pydna, at least, had been part of the Macedonian king’s domains during much of the Fifth Century (Thuc. 1.137.1; Plut. Them. 25-6; Diod. 13.49.1-2), and well into the fourth (cf., Isoc. 15. 113). 36. Justin (6.8.1) even records that Philip II increased city populations with prisoners of war. 37. See Hammond and Griffith, 1979 2: 358. 38. Hammond and Griffith, 1979 2: 360-61. 39. Ellis, 1976, 66. 40. Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 182. 45. Heckel, 1992, 211. 48. While Arrian does include them amongst the “Macedonian” trierarchs for his Indus fleet, he also lists the foreign born Nearchus, Androsthenes, and Laomedon as Macedonians (see note 44). 49. Heckel, 1992, 91. 50. See Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 182. 51. “The Macedonian Background,” Greece and Rome 12 (1965) 136; Hammond and Griffith, 1979 2: 361-62; cf., Fanoula Papazoglou, Les villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine, BCH Supplement 14 (Athens: Ecole française d’Athènes; Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1988), 105-06. 52. Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 190-2, 195-6. 53. Ellis, 1976, 55. 54. See M. B. Hatzopoulos, Une donation du roi Lysimaque (Diffusion de Boccard: Athens, 1988) 22-26; Billows, 1995, 133-4; cf., Hammond and Griffith, 1979 2: 661. In 356 Philip captured Potidaea and, after selling the population into slavery, handed it over to the Olynthians (Diod. 16.8.5; cf., Paus. 5.23.3). Philip obtained the region during his campaign against Olynthus in 349-8 (Diod. 16.52.9, 53.2). 55. I. P. Vokotopoulou, “He Epigraphe ton Kalindoion,” Ancient Macedonia 4 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1986) 87-114, ll. 5-10; N. G. L. Hammond, “The King and the Land in the Macedonian Kingdom,” CQ 38 (1988): 383, ll. 5-10; 385-6; Hatzopoulos, 1996, 1: 121-2; 2: 84-5 [no. 62]. 56. H. Berve, 1973, 1: 357; Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 437. In the various Hellenistic kingdoms the phoros was a regular requirement of possessors of royal land (see Billows, 1995, 126). 57. See Billows, 1995, 146-69. Antigonus in 316 attempted to undermine the loyalty of Eumenes of Cardia’s army, in part, by offers of “large gifts of land” (Diod. 19.25.3). 58. See Billows, 1995, 132-37. 59. Billows, 1988, 45-49. 60. Billows, 1995, 134-37. 42. Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 70, 77-79, 92, 103. 61. In general, see J. R. Ellis, “Population-transplants under Philip II,” Makedonika 9 (1969) 9-16. Brian Bosworth’s contention that Justin only refers to “a redistribution within existing settlements” is not borne out by the text. A. B. Bosworth, “ASTHETAIPOI” CQ 23 (1973) 250. See Hammond and Griffith, 1979 2: 661 n. 2. 43. FGrH 115 F-224; Philip V likewise gave tracts of land associated with his cities to his hetairoi (Polyb. 22.13.5). 62. A. B. Bosworth, “Philip II and Upper Macedonia,” CQ 21 (1971) 105, sees this revolt as one indication that “the incorporation of the mountain kingdoms [Upper 41. See evidence collected by Griffith (1979 2: 356-7; cf., Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 180). Pydna is described during the reign of Perseus as a city of numerous nationalities (Livy 44.45.6). 30 Edward M. Anson Macedonia] proved ultimately unsuccessful.” As noted, this conclusion appears to be contrary to the evidence. Hatzopoulos, 1996 1:103,challenges the existence of the entire revolt, calling it, perhaps, “a pious fiction invented by the Romans.” 63. A cavalry unit was also formed from Upper Macedonia (Arr. Anab. 1.2.5). Of course, it could be argued, given the presence of Upper Macedonian aristocrats listed as from Lower Macedonia, that these horsemen were lowlanders who had received land in Upper Macedonia. It is unlikely that this could be said for the infantry from Tymphaea, Lyncestis, Orestis, etc., however. 64. A point noted by Hatzopoulos, 1996 1: 270. 65. Arr. Succ. 1.22-23; Polyaen. 8. 60; cf., Diod. 19.52.5. 66. Diod. 19.52.5; Arr. Succ. 1. 22-23; Polyaen. 8.60. 67. Arr. Succ. 1.23; Polyaen. 8.60; Diod. 19.52.5. 68. See J. E. Skydsgaard, “Transhumance in Ancient Greece,” Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, ed., C. R. Whittaker (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988) 78-82. Cf., T. Howe, Pastoral Politics: Animals, Agriculture and Society in Ancient Greece (Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 2008). Vitruvius (De Arch. 2, Pref. 3) has Alexander put forth the maxim about ancient Greek cities. “For as a newborn babe cannot be nourished without the nurse’s milk, nor conducted to the approaches that lead to growth in life, so a city cannot thrive without fields and the fruits thereof pouring into its walls, nor have a large population without plenty of food, nor maintain its population without a supply of it.” Aristander, according to Arrian (Anab. 3.2.2), commented on the founding of Alexandria in Egypt that the city would be prosperous “especially in the fruits of the earth.” 69. For the identification of the Perrhaebians as penestai, see Ducat, 1994, 67, 97. 70. Billows, 1995, 203. 71. With respect to the size of these grants, no evidence exists for Macedonia. However, an inscription from Attalid Pergamum lists three sizes of military land grants. The largest includes 125 plethra of cleared land and 12.5 of vineyard; the smallest 100 plethra of cleared land and ten of vineyard. See C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Era (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1934) 51, ll. 10-16. Since a plethron is a unit of length, 100 feet, these measurements of area are probably equivalent to a plethron squared, or 10,000 square feet (So Billows, 1995, 164,n. 53). The largest of these grants then was equivalent in area to approximately 31.5 acres; the smallest, about 25 acres. 72. Hammond, 1992, 153, 165, overstates the extent of this reform on Macedonian agriculture. Transhumant agriculture did not disappear or suffer a “steep decline.” See above; cf., J. E. Skydsgaard, 1988, 78-82. 73. Billows, 1995, 29. 74. V. D. Hanson, The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (New York: Free Press, 1995) 35. 75. This is the conclusion of Peggy Barlett, “Adaptive Strategies in Peasant Agricultural Production,” Annual Review of Anthropology 9 (1980) 555, after a review of a number of studies of modern dependent farm laborers.