100,000 mercenaries (including afield army, garrison troops, plus afleet
of 80–90 ships).^95 The Successors were obliged to continuefinding sums
of this order so as to carry on enforcing their authority and thereby
justifying their right to rule over subject and would-be subject peoples.
Nevertheless, the bulk of the 200,000T released by Alexander III from
the Persian treasuries and circulated by his Successors passed quickly
into private hands.^96 The Asiatic campaign, and the Wars of the Succes-
sors, stimulated demand for all kinds of services in addition to purely
military ones, and the availability of payment ratcheted up the quality of
potential clients and candidates for these services. Much of the coined
money ended up far away from the mints where it was issued. A great
deal of it ended up in hoards, some in Asia Minor, much more in the east
Balkans. The reasons for this dynamic, and the means by which the
transfers came about, have not been fully explained. Martin Price, who
made a special study of the coinage issued in the name of Alexander the
Great, linked the burial of a number of hoards in inland Thrace with
Celtic movements in the area during the third centurybc. But he did not
develop this explanation in any systematic way.^97 It is possible that the
uncertainties caused by the presence of a number of Celtic irregular
armies during the two middle quarters of the third centurybctriggered
the burial of various hoards, which were not subsequently recovered.
Nevertheless, it does not explain why the coins buried in them found
their way into these areas in thefirst place. The locations of hoards of
precious metals is closely connected with the configuration of urban or
quasi-urban foci, which suggests that the accumulation of money in
these areas is linked to the presence of wealthy landowners in the vicinity
and to commercial transactions. The silver and gold coins issued post-
humously in the name of Philip II, on a lighter weight system, have been
connected by George Le Rider with issues destined primarily for internal
exchange within the region, whereas coins in the name of Alexander
circulated widely and operated in effect as an international currency.^98
The owners of these hoards must be connected in one way or another
(^95) The most recent calculation is by Le Rider and de Callataÿ 2006, 174 and n.3; cf.
Archibald 2011, 48 and n.12; Bresson 2005a, 59–62 on early Hellenistic money supply;
Aperghis 2004, 213–46 and Capdetrey 2004 for discussions of Seleukidfiscal policy.
(^96) Cf. de Callataÿ 2006a, 51–4, 64.
(^97) Price 1991, 47–9, 56–8, 66ff; the profile of Balkan hoards represents a different set of
circumstances and quite different actual issues from the types of coins modelled on Philip
II’s issues struck by Celtic moneyers (see e.g. Dahmen 2010, 52 and n.45 for examples);
see also Ch. 5 for further discussion of Balkan hoards (Rousseva 2002). 98
Le Rider 1992 on the two-currency system, within and outside Macedonia, during the
period 323– 290 bc; Le Rider 1996, 294, 319, on issues of Philip II in the Balkans.
80 Herdsmen with golden leaves—narratives and spaces