War and instability were two factors that substantially shaped the 4th century BC for Greece and the eastern Mediterranean. It was a transitional phase between the classical and Hellenistic eras, during which the kingdom of Macedonia, a peripheral Greek power, played a leading role. Under the rule of King Philip II, it consolidated its dominance over mainland Greece and eventually expanded its holdings eastward through the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. However, his early death led to the fragmentation of power among his generals, known as the diadochi, who engaged in a series of wars for the division and supremacy of the Alexandrian empire.
In these conditions of competition, the various successors of Alexander employed a wide variety of means and tools to assert themselves. Among them, we should highlight the use of mercenaries and freelance warriors. This fact opened up numerous opportunities for different groups such as bandits or pirates. Thus, we find their reflection in various sources about the second half of the 4th century BC, a period when they formed part of Hellenistic armies (Beek, 2015, p. 19). Specifically, we will focus on the characteristics, organization, and finally, the alliances that were established around piracy.
Mercenaries and freelance warriors
To begin with, we should correctly define both mercenaries and freelance warriors, both related to the concept of legitimacy. The former would be defined as a group of warriors who carried out a series of services in exchange for payment. In this way, they were entrusted with the legitimacy to commit violent acts. Mercenaryism was a respectable activity, an enterprise of prestige and public character since it was financed by the state (Potter, 1984, pp. 231-232). For the second group, we would have a heterogeneous collection of pirates and bandits who acted on their own account; therefore, acts of plunder or looting did not have that safe conduct or justification (Beek, 2015, pp. 1-3). Nonetheless, this did not prevent relations or dealings with other political entities, a priori, opposed to these practices.
We can evidence the distinction between both groups in classical sources. The most significant example of the Hellenistic period is the siege of Rhodes by Demetrius. This event was described in great detail by Diodorus Siculus, whose testimony allows us to appreciate a clear differentiation between Demetrius' regular forces and pirate ships and merchant vessels (Diodorus Siculus, 2019, p. 158). It is necessary to indicate that we can find multiple terms for referring to pirates depending on the classical author with whom we are working, such as peirates (πειρατής), praedones, or katapontistes (καταποντιστής) in the Greek case (Souza, 1999, p. 9). It is also necessary to mention that there are cases where pirates are referred to as leistes (λειστός), a term that grouped together bandits who acted on land.
Organization and modes of operation
Regarding the modus operandi and the organization of pirates, we find a hierarchical structure based on trade and plunder. At the head, there was the figure of the archipirata or small dynasts who directed fleets of generally small and agile ships. The list of vessels that met these conditions is extensive and varies according to geography; however, in the Hellenistic period, we could highlight two: the hemiolia (ἡμιολία) and the myopharo . These proposals come from Henry Ormerod's studies (1924), which have been corroborated and consolidated subsequently by Casson's work (1973). The same author also points to the reuse of small ships (low draft) and goods by pirates (Casson, 1973, p. 88).
This assertion would again lead us back to the association between trade and pirates. On one hand, with these vessels and using their knowledge of the sea, they executed quick and surprise attacks, taking advantage of rugged terrain for concealment (Ormerod, 2012, pp. 27-30). On the other hand, the loot from their raids, both material objects and human beings, were resold in commercial stalls or at military camps themselves. Thus, we find that pirates were capable of providing multiple services to armies, earning them the designation of «camp followers» by modern historians (Souza, 1999, p. 45). In case they acted as mercenaries within armies, their strategies were limited to the orders of the contractor, with the siege of Rhodes being the clearest example (Diodorus Siculus, 2019, p. 158).
Unlike banditry, piracy could act through both means; that is, they carried out amphibious attacks. They did not only focus on "hunting" coastal populations but also reached the point of taking cities and plundering sanctuaries (Debord, 1982, p. 242). The broad spectrum of action that they enjoyed allowed them to have greater success and sophistication than their land-based counterparts. This success placed pirates at the forefront of military technology due to their equipment, emphasizing their vessels (Davies, 2008, p. 286).
Links and alliances
Finally, regarding external relations, the main factors for understanding negotiations were as follows: dependency ties, loot, circumstances of combat, or an external offer (Beek, 2015, p. 19). For mercenaries, researchers point to the offer made by the contractor as the primary motive (Gabrielsen, 2005, p. 395). Nonetheless, informal alliances could exist, that is, those not dependent on an explicit payment. This method could involve issues such as facilitating information or the use of infrastructure (Ormerod, 2012, p. 207).
Alliances could also be made horizontally, that is, between pirate bands themselves, forming in this way factions. The result of this process was the formation of a series of networks that allowed not only recruitment but also information and infrastructure flows to execute their actions (Arrayas Morales, 2012, p. 30). Even we could point out the existence of pirate bases. However, these connections or location under the label of «pirate» must always be subject to judgment due to the bias in sources.
Conclusions
In a context of instability and conflicts, pirates played an important role within Hellenistic armies, differentiating themselves from mercenaries. Thanks to their knowledge of the sea and their ships, they had a broad range of services that oscillated between amphibious military activities and the resale of plundered loot.
Finally, at the head of them was an archipirata or dynast who possessed some maneuvering capacity within the armies of the diadochi in exchange for loot, information, or infrastructure use. Under his command, he could direct a fleet of ships or larger pirate organizations, thus becoming a fundamental piece within conflicts in the eastern Mediterranean.
Bibliography
Beek, A. L. (2015). Freelance Warfare and Illegitimacy: The Historians Portrayal of Bandits, Pirates, Mercenaries and Politicians. University of Minnesota.
Casson, L. (1973). Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton University Press.
Debord, P. (1982). Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l'Anatolie gréco-romaine. Brill.
Diodorus Siculus. (2019). Bibliotheca Historica. Books XVIII-XX. RBA Libros.
Gabrielsen, V. (2005). Piracy and Slave Trade. In A. Erskine (Ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World (pp. 389-404). Blackwell Publishing.
Ormerod, H. (2012). Piracy in Antiquity: An Essay on the History of the Mediterranean. Renacimiento.
Potter, D. (1984). IG II2 399; Evidence for Athenian Involvement in the War of Agis III. The Annual of the British School at Athens, 79 (1), 229-235.
Souza, P. (1999). Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge University Press.
Comments