Bugger ! Am I ever going to catch up ? So much to respond to..............it's all very well for you two - this is well-trodden ground you have visited many times here. As I indicated, this time around I am hoping we will do a thorough job of examining the material. As you will see from the rest of this post, it is easy to make assumptions which are not in fact borne out by the source material.....
Paralus wrote:
I'm afraid I've got to agree with Agesilaos. This seems an over-ingenious construction of the evidence to postulate yet another group of somatophylakes. The argument relies not only on the fact that the terms used by Arrian (and Diodorus!) are used technically but further that they are consistently so. As Agesilaos has pointed out, this isn't so. Diodorus has been described as one of those "cheap prose writers" too afraid to use the same word twice in the one paragraph (can't quite remember who wrote that). The piades basilikoi, agema and the somatophylakes all, as part of their 'duty', acted as bodyguards of the king. This is why they are all so described as somatophylakes in the sources. This was, and remains, the simplest view of the word's usage.
On the contrary, the whole ‘raison d’etre’ for this thread is because generic descriptions such as somatophylakes are, rather confusingly for us, applied in a non-consistent way at times. I don’t posit that the words are used technically or consistently, but in all but a few ambiguous cases it is possible to deduce from context what, or rather who, is meant. Nor am I postulating “yet another group of somatophylakes.” In Arrian, the word is used some 31 times or so, and of those only 4 do not refer to one of the seven, namely: I.6 Pelion - S. and companion cavalry; III.11 A. Leads a raid composed of “S. ton Basilikoi” plus the Hypaspists plus 8,000 other troops; IV.3 where the S .plus Hypaspists archers and agrianes capture a town by a ruse and IV.30 where A. Takes 700 of the S. and Hypaspists to scale Aornus , just as I related.( and VI.27 when a murdered viceroy named Philip is avenged by his Macedonian S. – the only non-Royal reference to S., though Parmenion has ‘armigeri’/guards [Curtius VII.2.28] )
That paides basilikoi are somatophylakes/bodyguards we know from the re-inforcements referred to in detail in Diodorus XVII.65.1 and Curtius V.1.40-42 – Arrian III.16, referring to the same re-inforcements doesn’t even bother to mention the paides, or the numbers of troops, increasing the probability that it is just a casual mention of detail in the other two, probably drawing on a common source. The later conspiracy of Hermolaus also confirms this bodyguard function for the paides [Arrian IV.13 ff ]
Incidently, neither the foot Agema, nor the later mounted Agema, ( Arrian uses the word 16 or so times) are ever directly described as, or associated with, the word somatophylakes in Arrian or the appropriate sections of Diodorus.
Thus the generic word somatophylakes, like its equivalent English word ‘bodyguards’ can be :-
1. The titular ‘seven’, later ‘eight’ when Peucestas was so rewarded after saving A.’s life at Mali, who form the senior staff of Alexander, and guard his door literally at night. This is an appointment rather than a rank, and always kept at seven, for if one dies or is appointed to another post such as Satrap, a new Somatophylax is appointed. The vast majority of Arrian's use of the word refer to the Seven.
2. The body of 100 or so paides (or ex-paides if the word somatophylakes is the name of a separate unit, a sub-group/sub-unit of the foot Agema, as postulated by Agesilaos – except that these can’t legally be ‘of military age’ until they become neoi/new men at 21)
3.
Possibly a generic term used as an alternative synonym for the Agema, as postulated by Paralus – but if so the word is never directly associated with either Agema ( see above) and in any event only so used 4 times as related above, alongside the Hypaspists ( out of 31), and significantly never in pitched battle.
One might imagine that real evidence for this theory would be found should Arrian note Alexander taking the somatophylakes, the agema and the hypaspists. This would clearly illustrate the three distinct units. Unfortunately such an attestation never occurs in his text. You'd have to ask why? The simple answer is that there were not three such distinct units hence the lack of attestation. Positing a differentiation based on battlefield units and bodyguard units (not "a regular army unit') is most unconvincing - made the more so by the fact that Diodorus mentions Hephaestion's wounding leading these supposed "bodyguards" at Gaugamela.
Your best point, I think, but not terribly good since it is all implied inference from lack of evidence. Mention of the three together would be the best positive evidence that that the three were all separate “units”, but we don't have such. The description we have of the paides providing an inner court bodyguard as (probably ) epheboi, at an age when technically they were not quite yet ‘new men’/neoi means for certain that these somatophylakes cannot be a ‘regular army unit’.(contra both your view and that of Agesilaos).
Gaugemala 331 BC was a case of “all hands to the pumps”, with even servants and grooms taking part in the fighting. No surprise that a useful ‘troupe’ of around 100 young men in their prime, and nobles to boot, should take part as cavalry ( they amount to half a squadron), or that these illustrious young nobles should be commanded by Hephaistion, a titular appointed somatophylax.[Diod. XVII.61].
What would be a surprise is if this turned out to be the
one and only time that the sources directly refer to the Agemati (foot or horse) as somatophylakes.
Your inference that Hephaistion is here commanding the Agema of the Hypaspists goes against the weight of evidence and probability, in my view – not least because Nicanor commanded the Agema and Hypaspists at this time so far as we know.
.
What we do have is Alexander leading/taking the agema, the hypaspists and other troops or leading/taking the somatophylakes, the hypaspists and others. Hence at 1.1.11 Alexander "collected the agema, the hypaspists and the Agrianians" (ditto 1.8.3). The agema is noted in the battle lines of Guagamela and Issos as you noted. After book III it is used less but not ignored. It is over these books that Arrian refers to Alexander leading the somatophylakes and the hypaspists (the somatophylakes at Pelion are, as I've written on the other thread, the "seven" - it is cavalry that is being discussed).
This is incorrect. Actually rather the opposite is true, up to Gaugemala [III.11.9 ] we hear of the Agema in Arrian at I.1.11 ( in Thrace, as you mentioned). Next at I.8.3 ( “the agema and the following Hypaspists”); I.8.4 (the following line when the same troops are given their more formal fuller titles “the Agema of the Makedones and the King’s Hypaspists”, probably for variation in consecutive lines.) II.8.3 at Issus ( “the agema and the hypaspists under Parmenion’s son Nicanor”).
After Gaugemala, the agemata, both foot and horse are referred to a dozen times in Books V; VI; and VII.
In Arrian, the references to “somatophylakes” other than one of the Seven are just four out of 31 – the rest being to the Seven; viz I.6 Pelion, where the S. ride with the companion cavalry to take a hill of tactical importance; III.11 after Gaugemala when Alexander leads a raid consisting of the ‘somatophylakes ton basilikoi’ and the Hypaspists, plus 8,000 other troops; IV.3 where through a ruse the S. and the hypaspists, archers and agrianes take a town by getting under the wall via a dried watercourse.
The remaining fifth reference is VI.27 when a viceroy Philip is avenged by his non-royal generic Macedonian bodyguards.
In Diodorus, at I.87 we have reference to the S. of the Egyptian god Osiris. We have the S. at King Philip’s murder [XVI.93 and 94]. At Gaugemala we have Hephaistion wounded whilst commanding the S.[XVII.61] – who as I said, can’t be the agema, because these were almost certainly under Nicanor’s command. At XVII.92 a S. grabs an Indian who is chopping at a hunting dog to demonstrate to Alex. that it won’t let go of its prey. At XVIII.2 there is a reference after A’s death to the influential Philoi/Friends and somatophylakes /the seven. And at XVIII.2 and 7 there are references to Peithon and Peucestas respectively as S.
Curtius makes 13 or so references to corpores custodes/somatophylakes, where again most are to the seven, save a couple of exceptions.
At VII.5.40 Oxathres, brother of dead Darius, is 'admitted' to the corpores custodes. This may be be the seven, but if so it must be doubtful that he is an actual advisor, save in matters Persian, most likely is simply an honorific, and this exalted Prince might seem an unlikely recruit as foot-soldier or cavalryman in the two agemata, or an attendant in the paides. Similarly 4 Sogdian nobles are rewarded for their bravery by being incorporated as ‘c.c.’[VII.10.9]. I don’t agree the inference of Agesilaos that at VI.10 and VII.2, that reference is being made to men of the ‘Ile Basilikoi’– that seems to be drawing a long bow!
At VIII.9.24 , an Indian King has bodyguards/’c.c’
At VIII.11.4, the capture of the rock of Aornus, according to Curtius Alexander selects 30 of the most active young men from ‘sua cohorte’ under Charus and another Alexander as a ‘forlorn hope’. Once again this is consistent with a bodyguard consisting of young epheboi/paides, though hardly conclusive I admit. ( The commanders Charus and the other Alexander die bravely and are described as 'young men' ) Alexander follows them up the rock with his ‘c.c’. BTW, his account is rather different to Arrian’s,[IV.29.1] where Ptolemy Lagos unsurprisingly plays a prominent part with the agrianes, other psiloi/akontistai and a picked company (epilektoi) of Hypaspists.
If the contention is that these somatophylakes are not a "regular army unit" but a bodyguard unit made up of 100 young (under 21) nobles who are a subgroup of the paides, it is odd they are not mentioned when we might expect them to be. For example, at 5.2.5, Alexander is seized with a desire to see Mt Meros where the Nysians told him memorials to Dionysus were to be found. This is not a combat situation and Alexander went "with the cavalry companions and the infantry agema" ( tois hetairois tois hippeusi kai tō pezikō agēmati). Where for art thou bodyguards? This is the perfect instance in which such a unit would be taken yet it is conspicuously absent. Alexander has, though, taken these somatophylakes; he simply refers to them as the agema as I, and Agesilaos, would argue. It rather begs the question when Arrian only mentions this "subgroup of paides" - a group too young to be "regular army" and "whose main role is to closely protect the King in a personal sense off the battlefield" - in combat operations but not in a bodyguard context (off the field).
Not odd at all, for as you correctly say, these paides/somatophylakes are part of the court, not the army, and they have non-military duties, as well as ‘body-guarding’. Alexander often takes off with flying columns/task forces, leaving the court behind, including the paides - as Agesilaos referred to in his very first post [Arrian IV.16] when the court are left behind in Zariaspa, supposedly away from combat, and are raided by the Massagetae, and the paides take part in the combat. Your inferred premise, then, immediately falls down, for there is positive evidence for the paides/somatophylakes not accompanying A. in the field – their place was generally at court.
Then there is Ptolemy son of Seleukos who is described as sōmatophulakōn tōn basilikōn. This Ptolemy is not a member of the "seven" as I've related before (unless his sabbatical resulted in a demotion!) and is clearly something else. The logical conclusion is that he is the same as those at Philip II's murder and the other references in Arrian to such somatophylakes. I don't find it at all plausible that he was placed in command of these troops if he is a member of a group too young to be in the regular army.
Most scholars credit Ptolemy son of Seleucus as being one of the ‘seven’, nor was he ‘demoted’ after taking the married men back to Macedon and returning.[Arrian 1.21] You seem to be confusing a military ‘rank’ with a military ‘appointment’. As an example, a battalion of Infantry is commanded by a Lt Col, a quite senior officer usually in his forties. His second-in-command administratively is his adjutant, which is an ‘appointment’ and who is of quite junior rank as a twenty something lieutenant or captain, despite holding this senior position. They are on their way to commanding companies as Majors. Indeed the Seven are often described as adjutants or Staff officers, learning their trade. In this instance, upon returning, Ptolemy son of Seleucus was promoted to what we would call a Brigadier-General commanding a ‘brigade/Division/Taxis’ of the phalanx.
I agree he couldn’t possibly be an ephebe/pais type of bodyguard.
As I've written on the other thread, Arrian uses somatophylakes and agema interchangeably. It is far more logical that Hephaestion commanded the agema at Gaugamela than a group of 100 paides. The agema was the king's personal foot guard and so we see him leading it on several occasions (above) hence they are termed such occasionally. As well, Alexander was bent on introducing Persian troops into the Macedonian units at the end of his reign. He even went as far as to draft Persian nobility into his guard units. Nowhere is a supposed subgroup of somatophylakes mentioned in the extensive list. What is mentioned is Persians drafted into the agemas (7.29.4). It is far more likely that Arrian refers to the same group by the different terms.
First, as the above demonstrates, Arrian did NOT use somatophylakes and agema interchangeably. Hephaestion could not have been in command of the agema at Gaugemala, because so far as we know, Nicanor commanded that unit. I agree with you that A. drafted Persian nobles into the agemas/agemata. He also honoured Oxathres,the brother of Darius, and some Sogdians by giving them the title of ‘corpores custodes’/somatophylakes [Curtius VII.5.40 and VII.10.9] but these cannot have served as bodyguards/attendants with the paides, and were probably honorific only (just as the title ‘Hetairoi’ could be). A. certainly drafted Persian equivalents of the Macedonian army units – the Agemas, Hetairoi cavalry ( and another Royal cavalry guard regiment/Hipparchy ) ‘silver shields’, pezhetairoi and asthetairoi [Arrian VII.11]
That there were no Persian somatophylakes is no surprise, firstly because they were part of the Macedonian court – court attendants in fact, not part of the army, and secondly because Alexander was not crazy enough to entrust his personal safety while he was asleep to armed former enemies !! ( Judging from Philip's death and plots against Alexander, it was risky enough entrusting your safety to your friends ! )
There is only an outside chance that the Agema of the Hypaspists/Makedones is being referred to as ‘bodyguards’ in the four instances I mentioned above, and significantly, none of these is in a pitched battle and in my view could well be the paides being ‘blooded’ in military operations, but I agree those instances are somewhat ambiguous. The ‘bodyguards’ commanded by Hephaestion at Gaugemala when “all hands to the pumps” was the order of the day, however, are highly unlikely to be the Agema because they were, so far as we know, commanded by Nicanor. They must therefore probably be the half-squadron of ‘somatophylakes’, just as Diodorus says.[XVII.61]