Eumenid Successor 322 BC - 316 AD

This list begins with Eumenes' appointment in 322 BC by the regent Perdikkas to hold the Hellespont against invasion from Macedonia, and ends with his treacherous handing over by the rank and file of the Argyraspids to Antigonos, who had captured their baggage. The list does not cover the year 319 BC as Eumenes was at that time beseiged in Nora with only a few hundred men. Eumenes had been Alexander's military secretary and was a Greek, not a Macedonian. As a result he had great difficulty securing the loyalty of his generals, and lost at least one battle as a direct result of desertions on the field. Macedonian phalangites are those captured from Neoptolemos. Light troops were deployed in the intervals between elephants. They do not seem to have been allocated to individual animals. The elephants were provided by Eudamos, who also provided some Indian cavalry and foot, although the foot were few and are here ignored as being subsumed into the other troop types. A sub-general may not command mounted troops other than elephants, and must command all Argyraspids and Hypaspists. Allied generals need not control compulsory troops. Battles against any Successor list drawn from before 300 BC count as civil wars.

Notes:

Aggression: With the exception of forcing his way through Seleukos' territory, Eumenes was in the position of military defender, protecting as he was, the Kings' positions. I have therefore downgraded his aggression rating from 3 to 2.

Terrain: The army's base is assumed to be Kappadokia, of which Eumenes was the appointed Satrap, and where he recuited most of his cavalry from. Eumenes did control Phoenicia very temporarily, and even prepared a fleet, but fled from the area rather than fight it out, so naval elements and a WW are not included.

List scale: I have taken the unusual scale of 1:384 since using a scale of 1:512 gives armies slightly too small to fit into the standard 400 AP, while using 1:256 both gives forces too large to fit in under 500 AP, and minima that are far in excess of 200 AP. At a scale of 1:384, the early period will not quite reach 400 AP, but the later period can yield a little over 600 AP of troops. To fight battles at true scale, all list minima and maxima must therefore be multiplied by 3/2.

Generals: Eumenes and other satrapal generals all fought mounted at the head of their agema. Generals were on the whole extremely disloyal, hence are rated as ally generals. Antigenes, commander of the Argyraspids, was a noted exception - and was burnt alive by Antigonos for it. The option to downgrade an early period general to Pk is to cover the men captured from Neoptolemus - Macedonians were not keen on serving under Eumenes as he was at this stage a condemned rebel. In contrast, the Argyrapids were later enthusiatic in supporting him since he was by then the Kings' legal commander in chief.

Cavalry: Eumenes consistently had a mounted superiority over his opponents. However, this was almost entirely based on satrapal horse, rather than Macedonian-style xystophoroi, very few of which were available until he had been joined by Peukestas and other eastern satraps after 318 BC.

Greek mercenaries: Reg Sp (O) represent 'genuine' hoplites, while Sp (I) represent Iphikratean-style 'peltasts': troops that fought in the main phalanx and could equally be called 'hoplites'. A proportion may be regraded as Ax (O): Antigonos is recorded as selecting some of his 'peltasts' to accompany psiloi in mountainous terrain, and the most likely way of reconciling them being called euzonoi ('lightened') is to assume they have swapped their long spear for javelins, as Alexander's pikemen are recorded doing at Halikarnossos. Such troops were probably used by all the Successors in similar situations. I no longer allow for the possibility that some mercenaries were equipped in the Macedonian manner: one relevent passage (Diodoros 19.40.3) in the Greek is ambiguous. An English translation would run: "the mercenaries and the others equipped in the Macedonian style", which certainly means the 'others' were equipped in the Macedonian style, but could mean the mercenaries were or were not equipped similarly. However another passage seems to rule this interpretation out, contrasting the mercenaries with those troops armed in the Macedonian manner. This likely applied to all Successor armies.

Pantodapoi phalangites: I have graded these as (I) partly because of the difficulties that would have been likely in coordinating a phalanx of men drawn from many different nationalities speaking diverse languages, but mostly because it is otherwise impossible for the Argyraspids to be as efficient as they historically were. Antigonos had many Pantodapoi in his army, and without a substantial number of his pikemen being (I), it is hard to imagine the Argyraspids routing the entire lot (even allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, they were obviously very effective).

Javelinmen: Eumenes' initial army likely had a large proportion of local troops, and he later recruited at least 10000 foot from around the Kilikian area (who therefore are unlikely to be all Greeks, contra Griffith). Some of these were no doubt used as Pantodapoi, but most must have kept their native equipment otherwise his phalanx would have numbered many more men that it did. No doubt a proportion of the eastern satrapal foot in the later period would have been equiped in this manner too.

Cretans, etc: Cretans are not directly attested, although he did recruit men from Cyprus, etc, so Cretans are certainly a distinct possibility. Slingers and archers are both known from the areas he recruited troops in.

As under Alexander, proper camp defences seem to have been used only upon occasion. Eumenes famously lost his life as a result of his Bg being inadequately protected.

Hypaspists: In Arrian, Hypaspists are what Diodoros (and this list) calls Argyraspids. What Diodoros calls Hypaspists were in Alexander's time seemingly Persian guardsmen and to judge from Alexander's funeral vehicle, some were armed with traditional Persian spears (though these are likely to have been the 'argyraspids' rather than the 'hypaspists'). The Hypaspists of Eumenes are likely to have been (at least some of) these same Persians, since Peukestas was the satrap of Persian, and a keen promoter of Persian customs. Since as I believe Alexander had 4000 Macedonian guards, the Persian guards would have been 4000 strong too to counterbalance them as Diodoros phrases it; these were likley split into an inner 1000 guard and an outer 3000 guard as Alexander's Macedonians seemingly were. Eumenes seems to have had both of the 3000 strong guards under his command. I assume the Persian hypaspists, the 3000-strong unit, were all armed with pikes. I grade them (O) since they were not as good as the Argyraspids, while no doubt better than the standard Epigoni/Pantodapoi. [Another theory is that Eumenes' Hypaspists were remnants of Alexander's Pezetairoi, cobbled together as a unit from the satraps' guards. In this case Pk (O) would also be most appropriate.]

Elephants: I would be tempted to rate all early period Macedonian elephants as (S) given they always had light infantry operating with them, and their percieved effectiveness, but the rules at present do not allow this. DBM in any case under the present rules can't adequately simulate the spreading out of 120 elephants over 4 kilometer's of frontage in any case, so any grading under DBM will be a compromise.

Persians archers and slingers: Peukestas brought 10000 of these, later reinforced by 10000 more, hence the huge numbers required. They are rated as Ps, and not Bw, despite their vast numbers, since they are described as psiloi, operate in company with elephants (and thus should move the same tactical speed), and are used in front of the battle line (as they were in Persian service at Issos), rather than as part of the battle line (as, in distinction, the Mardians were at Gaugamela).

This page last modified 17/5/2002