Hoi Basilikoi Paides

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by agesilaos »

I've stopped at a McDonalds to use the wifi and try to catch up.
Truly beyond the call of duty :lol:

Plautus, as a Roman and his Roman audience would find it rather precious to still have a pedagogue at twenty (not twenty-one, Philoxenos was allowed no freedom until the end of his twentieth year, which is his twentieth birthday).

http://archive.org/stream/comediesofpla ... 2/mode/2up this links to the relevant page of an English translation.

In Roman society the 'toga virilis' was assumed between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, with sixteen being the norm, there would follow a year under the wing of a suitable adult but one was legally a citizen once the toga had been assumed and ones name entered on the roll. Similarly in Athens one was enrolled with a tribe at sixteen and granted limited legal rights as a 'kyrios', at eighteen one became an ephebe and was enrolled in the citizen body with full legal rights; as you have mentioned, Demosthenes delivered a speech at the Ekklasia (Assembly) when he was an ephebe, something only full citizens were permitted to do; any citizen who suspected the right of a speaker to contribute could demand 'dokimasia' or scrutiny, where the speaker's citizenship would be tested in a court. Had any slave struck an ephebe it would end in an assault charge and death for the slave.

The position in Macedonia is less clear, understandably so since, it was a monarchy rather than a democracy, no Macedonian forensic speeches are known. Since Macedonia's constitutionalism is largely fiction, yet age groups do occur in the inscriptions we are not looking at evidence of gaining rights but rather the ages at which certain obligations might be imposed by the state, in a state where 'philotimaeia' counted for so much it seems most unlikely that slaves would be permitted to beat twenty year olds. In such a society, without defined rights, it would be more likely that once the boy was big enough to beat the slave that would signal his reaching 'maturity'.

You miss the point about Amyntas, that he had to have a regent demonstrates his minority; Philip V became king on Doson's death because he had attained his majority; I had forgotten the full story, so thanks for the reminder.

On 'taxis' you are simply wrong when you say
in a Macedonian context it referred to the (originally) six largest 'heavy' infantry units made up of sarissaphoroi/pikemen.
We lack any Macedonian manuals, but Arrian's usage is clear (and that is what is under discussion) and one falls into hideous nonsense if one assumes 'taxis' refers to phalanx units, he uses the word indiscriminately, fortunately characterising some of the units, there are taxeis of horse archers, javelinmen, mounted javelinmen etc. A 'phalanx' is literally a finger bone but is usually better translated as simply 'battle-line'and can be used of any troops, as it is of the Indians at the Hydaspes (who are also called 'hoplites'!) In the examples I gave above it is clear that the word 'phalanx' applies to the individual units and as such is in apposition to the general 'taxis'; it is possible that it reflects Aristoboulos' usage, since it is rarer than 'taxis' and one might expect Arrian to follow Ptolemy for military affairs. Ptolemy could get away with calling a unit X, Y or Z's unit because his audience would know what unit they commanded, Aristoboulos may preserve the Macedonian nomenclature, but may equally well be just indicating the troop type. There is a natural urge to impose a logical technical language upon the sources, and there is an under lying structure of nomenclature, but we have to always remember that a Greek will call a bucket, a pail, a hollow water container and liquid conveyance, all in the space of one sentence. So, Asklepiodotos uses 'syntagma' for the basic units of a pike phalanx (16X16), but this term is never encountered in the narrative sources, we find 'speira' in Polybios, possibly 'hekatostyes' in Arrian, yet modern historians almost invariably use 'syntagma' as it gives an impression of accuracy and technical precision; I reccomend Flaubert's 'Salammbo', where his research leads him to enumerating the forces in Asklediodotan terms and adding the theoretical numbers. A reasonable story none-the-less, if one is not averse to sadism and ophidiaphilia :oops:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Paralus »

I tell you, this is getting difficult to keep pace with. The day job is taking a ‘Pothotic’ toll.
agesilaos wrote:Tarn argued from this passage that the appellation ‘Royal Hypaspists’ applied to all the Hypaspists, including the ‘agema’, yet, as we have seen the ‘Royal Hypaspists’ are named as separate from the ‘agema’ and the ‘other hypaspists’ on each occasion that they are mentioned. There are also the unassigned commanders, Balakros, Philip and Philotas, to consider. They cannot be phalanx commanders as the two phalanx units are accounted for. Balakros is generally a commander of Thracian javelineers and Alexander may have taken these from Krateros’ column, were they not Leonattos would have no light infantry with him. Philip and Philotas remain, they must then be hypaspist officers, as only that corps remains of the infantry, further the construction ‘τὴν x καὶ y τάξιν’ invariably applies to two units of the same type and again the Hypaspists seem the only option (though that does not stop Bosworth suggesting they were lights!) .
Like those disciples of Quellenforschung, this is beginning to resemble hypotheses built on guesses based upon speculation. For the sake of actually getting an oar in the water I’ll deal with the ‘Royal Hypaspists’ anon. For the moment…

There is more than one supposition too far here. The conclusion is fraught for it is assumes far too detailed a knowledge of the forces at Alexander’s disposal at this moment – either by Arrian or moderns relying on his ‘expertise’ in Macedonian matters military. Firstly, Arrian is not always in the habit of detailing all the forces Alexander has with him at any one moment (other than the battle lines for set pieces); even when he does he is not always fulsome and correct. In the pursuit of Darius, for example, the military historian tells us that Alexander set off with “the Companion cavalry, the Scouts, the mercenary cavalry under Eriguois’ command, the Macedonian phalanx (except for those assigned to guard the treasure), the archers and the Agrianians…” (3.20.1). It is not until we get to 3.21.8 that we find that Alexander orders Nikanor “the commander of the hypaspists and Attalos, who led the Agrianians…) to follow at a slower pace. And so, eventually, we find out that the hypaspists also came along (and were, incidentally, considered part of the “Macedonian phalanx”). Aside from the mention of their unambiguously attested commander’s name, we would have to assume that Alexander had left the hypaspists behind. At 6.5.5 Alexander sends the mounted horse archers along with other troops across the river to Craterus and then at 6.6.1 Alexander leads these same troops himself on the opposite side of the river. A stuff up at Hydaspes - by Arrian or in transmission - is not out of the question.

Secondly, there are clearly many units with Alexander that we are never told of. Just as Alexander leaves Bactria for India, he deposits 3,500 cavalry and 10,000 infantry with its satrap. We can assume the Dahae were with the army after Bessus’ elimination yet they are not heard of until they appear at Hydaspes (5.12.2). The dangers in your argument should be as apparent as the proverbial canine gonads.

To elaborate, you conflate notices from disparate sources to claim that Philotas, the ambiguously attested taxiarch / pentokosiarch, possibly of the hypaspists, in Curtius is the same Philotas of Arrian 4.24.10. The assumption then is that he must be commanding hypaspists and so, too, Philip who is nowhere attested as such – ambiguously or otherwise. This, though, is not the only time Philotas’ unit is taken in a division of the army. At 3.29.7 Alexander detaches a portion of the army – again under Ptolemy – to arrest Bessus:
When Alexander heard this , he rested the army and led it on at a more relaxed pace than before, but dispatched Ptolemy son of Lagos with three hipparchies of Companion cavalry, all the mounted javelin men, the infantry battalion of Philotas, one chiliarchy of hypaspists, all the Agrianians and half the archers with orders to march at a rapid pace…

tauta hōs ēkousen Alexandros, autos men anapauōn ēge tēn stratian skholaiteron ē prosthen, Ptolemaion de ton Lagou apostellei tōn te hetairōn hipparkhias treis agonta kai tous hippakontistas xumpantas, pezōn de tēn te Philōta taxin kai tōn hupaspistōn khiliarkhian mian kai tous Agrianas pantas kai tōn toxotōn tous hēmiseas…
Nothing at all here – and it is post Sittakene – indicates that Philotas commands hypaspists. Ptolemy takes the infantry (pezon) unit of Philotas and a chiliarchy of the hypaspists. Philotas' unit is an infantry unit and it is contrasted with the - separate - chiliarchy of hypaspists. Given the make up of the force – a “flying column” sent at rapid pace – it is a certainty that these are light armed foot. It would seem just as certain to me that he commands exactly the same in India at 4.24.10. I can only agree with Bosworth.

As a matter of interest, Arrian doesn’t bother to inform us what phalanx unit Alexander has with him – we have to deduce this just as we do the hypaspists in the pursuit of Darius. Just as there the hypaspists were part of the “Macedonian phalanx” (and are included in that without separate mention), “Royal hypaspists” likely refers to the lot.
agesilaos wrote:Paralus’ question will remain, what use are 150 men?

They are worth a lot if the terrain is close, as it seems to have been here…
Alexander was planning to fight in the open – something he did as the Indians “taking courage from their superiority in numbers […] came down into the plain” where Alexander defeated them “without much trouble” (4.25.1). Ptolemy’s section, which on my reading, comprised a chiliarchy of hypaspists, five units of light troops and half the cavalry was posted on “uneven ground” facing Indians holding a higher (hill) position. I would say his force was perfect for the difficult location.
agesilaos wrote:… and there is a hint that the Royal Hypaspists may have had a promachoic (fighting ahead of the main battle line) string to their bow (not that I am suggesting they were archers!). At the Hydaspes Arr V 13 iv
wrote:τῶν δὲ πεζῶν πρώτους μὲν τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς τοὺς βασιλικούς, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Σέλευκος, ἐπέταξε τῇ ἵππῳ: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὸ ἄγημα τὸ βασιλικόν: ἐχομένους δὲ τούτων τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπασπιστάς, ὡς ἑκάστοις αἱ ἡγεμονίαι ἐν τῷ τότε ξυνέβαινον: κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἄκρα τῆς φάλαγγος οἱ τοξόται αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ Ἀγριᾶνες [καὶ] οἱ ἀκοντισταὶ ἑκατέρωθεν ἐπέστησαν.

‘The Royal Hypaspists were deployed in front (protous) of the foot next to the horse…’ seemingly to cover the deployment of the ‘agema’ the’ other hypaspists’ the rest of the phalanx and the psiloi on the wings, quite how this would be achieved is a matter of debate…
Well, again as with the earlier rendering of the agemata at Thebes, I think this is a self-serving translation of the passage. It’s better to look at the fuller passage:
ὡς δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἐπεπέρατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὕδωρ, ἐπὶ μὲν τὸ δεξιὸν κέρας παρήγαγε τό τε ἄγημα τῶν ἱππέων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἱππαρχιῶν τοὺς κρατίστους ἐπιλεξάμενος: τοὺς δὲ ἱπποτοξότας τῆς πάσης ἵππου προέταξε: τῶν δὲ πεζῶν πρώτους μὲν τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς τοὺς βασιλικούς, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Σέλευκος, ἐπέταξε τῇ ἵππῳ: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὸ ἄγημα τὸ βασιλικόν…

The Landmark:
When he had also crossed that expanse of water, he led the cavalry agema and the strongest men selected from the other hipparchies to the right wing. He posted the mounted bowmen in front of (προέταξε) the entire cavalry. As for the infantry, he posted the Royal hypaspists, under Seleukos’ command, next to the cavalry. Beside the hypaspists he posted the royal agema…
Now, Arrian is as clear as can be that the Dahae (mounted archers) are in front of the cavalry. This is correct as they are first into action. Here προέταξε, as the LSJ gives, means place or post in front of or stand in front of. Arrian then says the Royal Hypaspists were πρώτους which can mean “before”, “forward” (in front) or “of place: first, foremost”. Arrian is describing a battle line or, as we know from earlier, a Macedonian phalanx of which the hypaspists are a part. He is unambiguous with the Dahae but is ambiguous here. It is not likely that Alexander has posted a section of the hypaspists – a small section on your reading – to cover the rest of the infantry. It is most likely that Arrian means “first”, that is, next to the cavalry (see below:πρῶτον, Guagamela) . This is the natural battle line and Alexander hardly has an overwhelming superiority of infantry numbers.

As a not inconsequential aside, Arrian describes the force that Alexander selects for the crossong at 5.12.2. When detailing the infantry Arrian says “from the phalanx (Alexander selected), the hypaspists, the taxeis of Kleitos and Koinos, the archers and the Agrianians…”. There is no mention of “royal” agemas or “royal” hypaspists and the canine gonads here is the fact that these latter are all a part of “the hypaspists” – not separate units. We might also note that in the battle formation Arrian details for Gaugamela he notes "In the Macedonian phalanx, the agema of the hypaspists was posted right beside the cavalry (πρῶτον - I'm assuming we agree he does mean in front of the Companion cavalry?); beside them stood the rest of the hypaspists..." (3.11.9). He then goes into great detail about the rest of the line and the "refused" wings before stating that Alexander placed a second line, in the rear, and details the orders its commanders were given. There is not a single "Royal" hypaspist to be found until they and the grooms deal with the chariots. Again I'd suggest this is the rear ranks as no hypasists are in the rear line and if they were, this is an odd place to find a king's elite guard - especially one with a "promachoic string to their bow". Further, at 3.13.5-6, Arrian describes the results of the chariots driven "against Alexander himself" and notes that some made it through to be met as above. These troops are adjacent to the king. It appears they do not fight at Issos as here we have only the the "infantry agema and the hypaspists" (τῶν πεζῶν τό τε ἄγημα καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστάς). If anything is 'separate' here it is the agema! Again, the simplest view is that "Royal hypaspists" (contra Heckel) applies to the hypaspists: it is the agema / somatophylakes that are the unit within the unit.

Ooops. I did deal with the Royal hypaspists.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Paralus »

Not to take over proceedings, but whilst I have an hour I might adduce a little more to the above both on Arrian's reliability in detailing contingents and his use of the various terminology.

At Tyre (this has been discussed here or the other 64 page thread so I'll abbreviate) Alexander is described as assaulting the breach in the wall from ships. The asthetairoi are on the one and Alexander with "his hypapsists", under the command of Admetos, are on the other (2.23.2). Admetos dies but Alexander "with his heatairoi" take the breach (2.23.5-6). We are all agreed that these hypaspists are the agema / somatophylakes (though Agesilaos would likely now venture the "royal hypaspists") or "infantry agema" (c.f. 24.2 where Alexander and the hypaspists move from the breach to confront the regrouped Tyrians - clearly the infantry foot guard). Move forward to India. At 4.25.6 Alexander leads "the Companion cavalry, the mounted javelin men, the taxeis of Koinos and Polyperchon (the asthetairoi), the thousand Agrianians and the archers" and assaults Massaka. Later Alexander brings the siege engines forward and sets about taking the breach in Massaka's wall with "the hypaspists, the very unit that had demolished Tyre for him in the same way" (4.26.6).

This demonstrates two things. Firstly, Arrian has not listed the hypaspists amongst the troops he led against Massaka but they were clearly there. He does not provide fulsome lists and, unless we are specifically told otherwise, this unit or a sub unit of it must always be assumed to be with the king. Secondly, if (and I doubt there's any argument) it was the king's infantry guard that accompanied him aboard ship at Tyre, Arrian here refers to them as "the hypaspists" - no matter how many were involved and, given the use of siege towers, not thousands and similar to Tyre.

Arrian is cavalier with this "terminology". Whether this is source related, artistic variation or confusion is the debate.

Following from the second observation above, the notation at 4.30.5-6 is food for thought (Mensch's translation, Landmark):
The next day he (Alexander) sent out Nearkhos and Antiokhos, the commander of the hypaspists; he gave Nearkhos the command of the Agrianians and the light armed troops, Antiokhos command of his own and two additional regiments...

ἐς δὲ τὴν ὑστεραίαν Νέαρχόν τε καὶ Ἀντίοχον τοὺς χιλιάρχους τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ἐκπέμπει: [6] καὶ Νεάρχῳ μὲν τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας τοὺς ψιλοὺς ἄγειν ἔδωκεν, Ἀντιόχῳ δὲ τήν τε αὑτοῦ χιλιαρχίαν καὶ δύο ἐπὶ ταύτῃ ἄλλας...
Aside from a few recalcitrant views, Nearkhos is agreed not to be a hypaspist officer. Antiokhos is (a chiliarch) and is given his and two other 'regiments' unspecified. The natural reading - generally agreed - is his chiliarchy and two others. Now Alexander, having sent this lot ahead, follows with "his men". It must be assumed the infantry guard is with him. If that is so it would be interesting to know how many were with Antiokhos. For, if the agema is a part of a chiliarchy, it must be short. The other conclusion is that the three chiliarchies and the agema make up the hypaspists.

One might also observe that Nearkhos is given not only the Agrianians but also "the light troops". Units and numbers unspecified; simply the light armed. We do not know how many such units existed in Alexander's army at this time and who commanded these units.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Xenophon »

Paralus wrote:
I tell you, this is getting difficult to keep pace with.
Eeeeeeeeeek !!..............couldn't agree more. I'm still back on page 2, working on a response to Paralus' post of Oct 7 and undertaking a word study of Curtius' use of 'armiger' and 'corpores custodi', and how this relates to the paides as bodyguards - the original subject matter of this thread before Pandora's box erupted. :(

Can we have a moratorium, please, to at least draw breath ?? :lol:
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by agesilaos »

ἐς δὲ τὴν ὑστεραίαν Νέαρχόν τε καὶ Ἀντίοχον τοὺς χιλιάρχους τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ἐκπέμπει: [6] καὶ Νεάρχῳ μὲν τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας τοὺς ψιλοὺς ἄγειν ἔδωκεν, Ἀντιόχῳ δὲ τήν τε αὑτοῦ χιλιαρχίαν καὶ δύο ἐπὶ ταύτῃ ἄλλας..
Food for thought, indeed;
The next day he (Alexander) sent out Nearkhos and Antiokhos, the commander of the hypaspists; he gave Nearkhos the command of the Agrianians and the light armed troops, Antiokhos command of his own and two additional regiments.
Let’s go through this ; es de ten hysteraian – ‘The next day’ – good start ; ‘he sent out’ – ekpempei - Nearkhos and Antiokhos, no problem so far, BUT ‘tous chiliarchous’, THE commander? Articles and nouns have gender, case and…Number! ‘tous chiliarchous’ is plural, so ‘the chiliarchs of the Hypaspists@ the Greek is clear that both this Nearchos and Antichos are chiliarchs of the Hypaspists. Verse 6. ‘Kai’ does mean ‘and’ but the construction does not place it between the psiloi and the Agrianoi, rather ‘tous psilous’ describes ‘tous Agrianas’, the ‘kai’ should be read as ‘also’, thus ‘Nearchos was also given command of the Argrianian psiloi (as well as his own chiliarchy – not stated but understood), the final clause is fine other than the use of ‘regiment’ chliarchy is better retained.

So, ‘On the following day he sent out Nearchos and Antiochos , chiliarchs of the hypaspists (6) Nearchos was also given command of the Agrianian light infantry, Antiochos that of his own chiliarchy and two of the others.’

The ‘other’ chiliarchies are unlikely to be Hypaspists on this reading as neither commander is the archihypaspist, nor associated with the elite groups, the ‘agema’ (Antigenes command) nor the Basilikoi hypaspistai’ (Seleukos’); the extra chiliarchies are most probably not random psiloi but thye archers who later appear in two chiliarchies and frequently accompany the Agranoi.

The Landmark not alone in translating in accordance with the accepted wisdom rather than just rendering the Greek; there is leeway in much translation due to the ambiguities of literary Greek, but a plural is a plural (other than in cases of anacoluthon, but that applies to verbs not nouns as here).

On the Philotas with Ptolemy, I would merely observe that there were certainly more than one Philotases in the army (indicated by Curtius styling his ‘Augaeus’ in a list devoid of other distinctions). Just as it is unjustified to make each taxis a phalanx unit, so we should beware of adding psiloi to the army willy-nilly. Whilst I whole-heartedly agree that Arrian was not the master of his material and is careless in his force lists, we still have to remember that , aside from those passages he constructs himself, he likely repeats the usages found in his source (since he lacks the understanding to modify them!) and for that reason we have to be cautious of our own certainty of his ‘cavalier’ attitudes.

Already, modern terms are clouding the argument and since I am about to use them to explain my position that seems likely to continue.

I think that there was one hypaspist corps which included the ‘Agema’ – in the same way that The Guards Division comprises the Grenadier, Coldstream, Scots and Welsch Regiments; I see the ‘agema’ as further split into the ‘hypaspistai basilikoi’ and the general agema – as the Grenadier Guards used to have three separate battalions of differing seniority. What one considers a unit is dependent upon the level one considers; all HB are ‘agematai’, all ‘agematai’ are Hypaspists, each is a subset of the next. And just to clarify matters the nomenclature is not always distinct.

Xenophon, in the fullness of time you will see the relevance of everything to the original premise, which was the career of the Pais Basilikos (singular); I have searched all the sources for the various terms, I think I ended up with about fifteen sheets of A4; ‘armiger’ seems to be a consistent translation of ‘hypaspist’, ‘custos corporis’ , however, has a much wider application in Curtius which implies a wider use of ‘somatophylax’ in his source: you will notice that on at least two occasions it is used for members of the ‘Basilike ile’.

I will try to write up the synthesis and post in a fortnight, and then wait for the bullshark feeding frenzy… :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon, in the fullness of time you will see the relevance of everything to the original premise, which was the career of the Pais Basilikos (singular); I have searched all the sources for the various terms, I think I ended up with about fifteen sheets of A4; ‘armiger’ seems to be a consistent translation of ‘hypaspist’, ‘custos corporis’ , however, has a much wider application in Curtius which implies a wider use of ‘somatophylax’ in his source: you will notice that on at least two occasions it is used for members of the ‘Basilike ile’.

I will try to write up the synthesis and post in a fortnight, and then wait for the bullshark feeding frenzy…
:lol: :lol: :lol: While looking to tie down 'armigeri' and 'corpores custodis' in order to reply to Paralus Oct 7 post, I decided to grasp the bull by the horns, and do a complete check of our major sources, thus have spent many, many hours cross-referencing and looking up usages of 'paides', 'somatophylakes', 'hypaspists', 'Agema', and just to round things off 'pezhetairoi' and 'asthetairoi' ( once emendations to pezhetairoi were unravelled) .

By using a 'shorthand' and small writing I have covered only 7 sheets of A4. :lol:

If I'd known of your efforts in the same direction, I could just have asked you to scan your notes and attach them to an email !! :roll: :wink:

Now to get on and respond to the half-dozen or so major posts that I am behind you and Paralus on.............
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Paralus »

I should know better than to lay obvious traps. The actual Greek is indeed different and opens an entirely different 'front'. That said, your translation is somewhat forced.
agesilaos wrote:So, ‘On the following day he sent out Nearchos and Antiochos , chiliarchs of the hypaspists (6) Nearchos was also given command of the Agrianian light infantry, Antiochos that of his own chiliarchy and two of the others.’

The ‘other’ chiliarchies are unlikely to be Hypaspists on this reading as neither commander is the archihypaspist, nor associated with the elite groups, the ‘agema’ (Antigenes command) nor the Basilikoi hypaspistai’ (Seleukos’); the extra chiliarchies are most probably not random psiloi but thye archers who later appear in two chiliarchies and frequently accompany the Agranoi.
So we agree this is not the admiral Nearchos; this being any one of a number of possible "Nearchi". In which case, as you say, he is a chiliarch of hypaspists as is Antiochos. There are problems with your view though. The man who can argue...
agesilaos wrote:Philip and Philotas remain, they must then be hypaspist officers, as only that corps remains of the infantry, further the construction ‘τὴν x καὶ y τάξιν’ invariably applies to two units of the same type and again the Hypaspists seem the only option (though that does not stop Bosworth suggesting they were lights!) .
...can hardly then decide that Ἀντιόχῳ δὲ τήν τε αὑτοῦ χιλιαρχίαν καὶ δύο ἐπὶ ταύτῃ ἄλλας / Antiokhos command of his own (chiliarchy) and two additional regiments now means troops other than what has just been indicated: Antiokhos' own and two other chiliarchies (on your suggestion). This can really only mean his chiliarchy and two others of the same. Were these light troops, Arrian would likely have said so (as he invariably does). The fact that neither were archyhypaspist is of absolutely no moment - officers were given half the Companion cavalry without an Hephaestion to be seen. Were it not for Plutarch's use of the term we'd never know of it (which is no reason to dismiss it) or the fact that Neoptolemos was such (perhaps he's Freud's archetypal hypaspist?). Neoptolemos, in fact, never appears in command of hypaspists to my knowledge and certainly not at Hydaspes where one might assuredly think he might and we have no clearly attested (in Arrian) commander of the hypaspists since Nikanor. Accepting the translation as you render it (and I'm not arguing against it) necessitates four chiliarchies of hypaspists. Contra Bosworth and yourself, I think it most unlikely that these chiliarchies are archers. Arrian never fails to note the Agrianians and archers together when so detached. This would be the first and, whilst not impossible, I find it unlikely as Arrian, who refers to "one chiliarchy" (or two) of archers elsewhere in India, would fail to mention them here. I also find the argument that the Agrianians must be described as psiloi here -and here only - very unpersuasive. I won't bother looking for how many times Arrian has named the Agrianians up to this notice (very many)
without feeling a compulsion to describe them as psiloi
agesilaos wrote:On the Philotas with Ptolemy, I would merely observe that there were certainly more than one Philotases in the army (indicated by Curtius styling his ‘Augaeus’ in a list devoid of other distinctions). Just as it is unjustified to make each taxis a phalanx unit, so we should beware of adding psiloi to the army willy-nilly. Whilst I whole-heartedly agree that Arrian was not the master of his material and is careless in his force lists, we still have to remember that , aside from those passages he constructs himself, he likely repeats the usages found in his source (since he lacks the understanding to modify them!) and for that reason we have to be cautious of our own certainty of his ‘cavalier’ attitudes.
I disagree totally. There are not a plethora of 'Philotai' in Arrian. He twice has a Philotas as the leader of a unit or taxis. Both times are a division of forces where his unit is detached to a column. Both notices clearly point to it being unit of light armed infantry and thus it is almost certain this is the same Philotas.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by agesilaos »

How many different homonymous officers there were is a moot point so not really resolvable so we are working with degrees of probability and will have to agree to drawing the line in different places.

The construction is not the same, however in ‘τὴν x καὶ y τάξιν’ taxin is singular, which is why you might see notes that x and y were 'brigaded' together or suggestions that they shared the command; this figure is a form of 'anacoluthon', I think, where plural subjects share a singular verb form, so that rather than x and y's unit we have, x and y's units (of the same type). Such a construction is not present here it is a differentiated list where each unit has the correct 'number'.
For the Agrianes described as psiloi see

IV 4 vi
καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψιλούς
and the Agrianes and the other psiloi
IV 29 i
τούς τε Ἀγριᾶνας ἄγοντα καὶ τοὺς ψιλοὺς τοὺς ἄλλους
he led the Agrianes and the other psiloi (NB not ‘the psiloi and the others’)
VI 8 vii
οἵ τε Ἀγριᾶνες καὶ ἄλλαι τάξεις τῶν ψιλῶν
the Agrianes and the other units of psiloi
Note IV 29 I, where the contruction ‘tous noun tous adjective’ directly mirrors that at IV 30 vi; ‘psilos’ can be either, just as we might use ‘light’ ‘the lights maintained a steady fire upon the advancing columns,’ for instance.

Ptolemy’s role in IV 25 seems based on hand to hand fighting, making Philip and Philotas’ units psiloi would leave only the third part of the Royal Hypaspists as hand to hand fighters; note at verse 3 where the Indians strength is praised and earlier where Ptolemy forms his men into column to attack the narrow approach to the heights.

Note too, I would never, well, rarely say anything is beyond doubt, but Alexander does not seem to have increased his light infantry significantly after crossing the Hellespont and fails to have taken the archers of Persia into service prior to Peucestas’ appearance at Susa.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Paralus »

Maccas' wifi again. The dietary effect of this thread is alarming.
agesilaos wrote:How many different homonymous officers there were is a moot point so not really resolvable so we are working with degrees of probability and will have to agree to drawing the line in different places.
And I would argue that the probabilities - a Philotas with his "unit" being detached to a column including a chiliarchy of hypaspists (3.29.7), cavalry and mobile light troops and, later a third part of the hyapsists, cavalry and light troops (4.24.10) - definitely favour the same man and thus the same unit. Both columns are mobile, flexible combinations.

Arrian does indeed note the prowess of the Indians but he makes clear that it was Alexander's column which bore the brunt of the fighting. Ptolemy, on the other hand, is deployed on broken or uneven ground and seems to have been happy to buttonhole his hill-occupying Indians whilst offering them an escape route. His column is not deputed to a pitched battle - that task fell to Alexander.That the battle (Ptolemy's) was a "fierce one" is almost certainly down to Ptolemy himself. If he's telling the tale I'm sure it was far fiercer than Alexander's engagement - which engagement was intended to be the major one on the plain.
agesilaos wrote:Note too, I would never, well, rarely say anything is beyond doubt, but Alexander does not seem to have increased his light infantry significantly after crossing the Hellespont and fails to have taken the archers of Persia into service prior to Peucestas’ appearance at Susa.


We simply are not told. The example of the Dahae should serve notice here. We are not told when Alexander incorporated them into the cavalry arm but incorporate them he did. Figures in the sources for Alexander's army in India range to 120,000. Even should we dismiss 40,000 of these as camp followers Alexander has clearly added to his forces. Such additions facilitate the leaving of an "army" in Bactria (10,000!) when he decamps into India. The sources seem utterly disinterested in Asian forces (until Opis) and would seem to only list the "Euro" reinforcements (except the draft in the vulgate at Alexander's return to the Hydaspes if I recall) unless they occasionally mention particular units (Indian infantry, the Parapamisidai, Arachosian and Dahae cavalry at Hydaspes). There were obviously Asian units of infantry and cavalry added to the army - as separate units. It was only later that Alexander began introducing them into Macedonian units.

I will return to other matters when time permits.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote:For the Agrianes described as psiloi see

IV 4 vi
καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψιλούς
and the Agrianes and the other psiloi
IV 29 i
τούς τε Ἀγριᾶνας ἄγοντα καὶ τοὺς ψιλοὺς τοὺς ἄλλους
he led the Agrianes and the other psiloi (NB not ‘the psiloi and the others’)
VI 8 vii
οἵ τε Ἀγριᾶνες καὶ ἄλλαι τάξεις τῶν ψιλῶν
the Agrianes and the other units of psiloi
Note IV 29 I, where the contruction ‘tous noun tous adjective’ directly mirrors that at IV 30 vi; ‘psilos’ can be either, just as we might use ‘light’ ‘the lights maintained a steady fire upon the advancing columns,’ for instance.
I'm not making myself clear. What I meant was that Arrian does not describe the Agrianians as an individual unit elsewhere as the "Agrianian light troops". In fact, he never elsewhere notes them alone. No one, myself included, denies they were light troops only that they seemed to have formed something of a light version of the hypaspists - part of yet distinct from the psiloi as the hypaspists were part of, yet very distinct from, the 'Macedonian phalanx'.

Although you seem to be enjoying tilting at the "accepted wisdom", you are a rather lonely voice on 4.30.6. I understand the point about construction but the simplest and most natural reading is that two chiliarchies of hypaspists are meant. Antiochos has his own chiliarchy and two others of this unit. Arrian is quite capable of listing chiliarchies or units of archers - especially with the Agrianians. In fact, always with the Agrianians. That he signally does not here indicates he is not writing of the archers; he is writing of two other hypaspist chiliarchies. Thus one arrives at Bosworth's suggestion of four chiliarchies of hypaspists which just may be correct. Again, the agema must have been retained by the king
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Xenophon »

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]
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
'phalanx' used for the individual units (V 20 iii, too); 'battalion' is the worst possible translation of 'taxis' (see the thread 'defining ones terms'), it is a general word and should be translated as such, the neutral 'unit' is best. I agree with Paralus above except on Pelion, but let's leave that for a future thread! :lol:
Yes, we are agreed on this. Generic 'unit' is the most literal translation, and if you check my post you'll see I stated that phalanx could be used of a single taxis. Most Greek military terminology is imprecise, for example lochos meant different things at different times and places, but a loose translation is company, of an imprecise size........

There are plenty of threads for the future, and even a couple of existing ones to address and complete !! :)
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by agesilaos »

LOL :lol:
Yes, we are agreed on this. Generic 'unit' is the most literal translation, and if you check my post you'll see I stated that phalanx could be used of a single taxis.
And then you go and spoil it all by saying something...(should be in musical notes) ; you have just used 'taxis' as a specific term, ho ho. Have a webinar now so will return to deal with your foregoing post on Paralus' TTFN.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote: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.
If my inferred premise "immediately falls down" because the paides basilikoi stay home here your own is on gin-filled legs! I do not claim the agema as made up of paides; I have claimed the pais moved onto to this unit when done as such. Another bottle of gin... stumble. Then there is the stark fact that every time Arrian mentions the somatophylakes and insert other troops here it is in a battle situation as you yourself note:
Xenophon wrote: 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.
*Hic*. Leaving aside Pelion (where cavalry is meant and so the Seven), the force for the "raid" to force the pass at 3.17.2 is in the order of 11-12,000 men - larger that that which he used to force the Persian Gates. That for your "ruse" is a minimum 5,000 (and likely 6,000 - two chiliarchies of archers). Hardly training runs to "blood" unmanly paides basilikoi and as big (if not bigger) than the separate columns Agesilaos and I are discussing above.

Agesilaos is near certainly correct in that Arrian is reflecting his source's terminology. When Ptolemy writes he took "700 of the somatophylakes and hypaspists" or that he took "the somatophylakes and the hypaspists", he knew what he meant and likely did his audience. That latter is little if any different to "the agema and the hypaspists". Your inferred premise is on its knees.
Xenophon wrote:Thus the generic word somatophylakes, like its equivalent English word ‘bodyguards’ can be :-
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.
Unless, of course, "the somatophylakes and the hypaspists" = "the agema and the hypaspists".
Xenophon wrote: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.)
With which I'd agree (though 1.8.3 would read the "agema and the hypaspists"). And it is this variation in his sources that likely leads to somatophylakes being used in place of agema.
Xenophon wrote:II.8.3 at Issus ( “the agema and the hypaspists under Parmenion’s son Nicanor”).
Which is different to Guagamela (which you've mentioned three times) where "the agema of the hypaspists was posted right beside the cavalry; beside them stood the rest of the hypaspists under Nicanor..." The agema had its own commander. I would think we agree that the hypaspists accompanying the king at Tyre were his infantry guard (the agema at Issus being described as the τῶν πεζῶν τό τε ἄγημα / the infantry agema). This unit, led in person by the king, is commanded by one Admetus who is killed. I would argue that Seleukos commands this unit in India. This is why he - as hetairos (that term from Tyre again) - accompanies Alexander in the boat. It seems odd that Alexander would trust co-command of the phalanx - in pitched battle - to a small subset of the agema (Agesilaos' Royal Hypaspists) and he certainly isn't commanding paides on horseback.

It is interesting to note that the position of commander of the hypaspists seems, for all intents and purposes, to melt away after Nicanor's death. Plutarch claims Neoptolemus as "archyhypaspist" yet I can find no mention of him commanding hypaspists. What we do hear of are chiliarchs and commanders of the agema / royal hypaspists. If Justin is correct, Cassander is handed Seleukos' command in Babylon as Seleukos is given the first chiliarchy and command of the cavalry.
Xenophon wrote: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.
The appointment of somatophylax was about as high as the Macedonian noble could hope for in the court hierarchy. Retirement from this position was, as far as we can tell, by death or appointment to a governorship or satrapy. If this fellow is one of the Seven, he is the only one known to have been returned to the infantry. I cannot see that your modern day analogy can possibly stand: this is not a modern construct. On your reckoning Ptolemy returns and finds himself "promoted to what we would call a Brigadier-General". In that case Perdiccas must surely have had his Macedonian nose severely out of joint at his demotion from "Brigadier-General" to mere adjutant. The 'progression' was certainly the other way around and I doubt any of the Seven were lining up for your notion of promotion. These adjutants, far from going on to command a taxis of the phalanx, would command entire army groups post Gaugamela.

Arrian does not tell us who this member of the Seven is replaced by - although Polyperchon took his place as taxiarch. The Ptolemy who is credited as one of the Seven (most likely from Philip's time) is the Πτολεμαῖος ὁ σωματοφύλαξ ὁ βασιλικός commanding two taxeis and psiloi at Halicarnassus (τήν τε Ἀδαίου καὶ Τιμάνδρου ἅμα οἷ τάξιν ἄγων καὶ ἔστιν οὓς τῶν ψιλῶν - 1.22.4). We are not told who replaced him either.
Xenophon wrote: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. [...] 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]
I believe he used what he found in his source - Ptolemy using both somatophylakes and agema. Despite your continued protestations, I do not see it very likely at all that Hephaestion commanded a troop of paides at Gaugamela (or a troop of hypaspists numbering near the same). He did not command the Seven. As with Admetus at Tyre and Seleukos (and likely Cassander) after him, he commanded the agema of the Hypaspists.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Hoi Basilikoi Paides

Post by agesilaos »

Most points seem to have been covered, but re Hephaistion at Gaugamela; despite Xenophon's doubts it is quite clear to me that Curtius does use 'custodes corporis' (singular; custos corporis) to describe those Scyths and Persians admitted to the eile Basilikos, they are there for their prowess and bravery making a titular honour unlikely. It is moot whether they actually joined the unit, clearly Curtius' source thought they did and the story parallels the complaints given at Opis by Arrian (again, not necessarily so, but the author's construct of the troops grievances cf Roisman 'Veterans...'). Given that Curtius source is Greek and used 'somatophylakes' here, and that there is every chance both he and Diodoros reflect the usage of Kleitarchos, there is a possibility that Diodoros has confused Hephaistion's later joint Hipparchia with Kleitos, with command of the eile basilikos (which was Kleitos' command at Gaugamela), the error may even go back to the source. Or, and this is my preferred position (for a week or two :D ), the translation is really 'fighting foremost among the somatophylakes', Welles' note in the Loeb;
Curtius, 4.16.32; Arrian, 3.15.2. The meaning of this designation of Hephaestion is obscure. He did not command the footguards, the ὑπασπισταί, for Nicanor, Parmenion's son, was still their commander in 330 (Arrian, 3.21.8) and only died later in that year (Arrian, 3.25.4). The small group of bodyguards proper had no commander, and it is quite uncertain when Hephaestion became a member. He is first so called in 325 (Arrian, 6.28.4) and is conspicuous not so called in 328 (Arrian, 4.12.6; but Arrian's usage is not consistent, cp. 4.24.10). He was presumably not a bodyguard in 330 when he and Cleitus divided Philotas's command of the Companion Cavalry. This seems to exclude the translation: "fighting first among the bodyguards."
If 'somatophylakes' here means only the Royal Squadron Welles' objection evaporates and Curtius would tend to support this possible usage, putting Hephaistion where one would expect to find him, moumted and close to the king.

Once you accept that the 'paides' were normally at court then you have to concede that they are not the body of 'iuvenes' Curtius describes as being accustomed to accompany the king in the field during the Philip Agathoklou incident. Nor are the 'Paides' described as 'somatophylakes', 'somatophylakaia' is one of their duties, unarmed and whilst the king sleeps; Curtius too only refers to the duty of 'custodia', V 1 xlii 'ad custodiam corporis' not 'ad custodes corporis', ie they fulfill the function they do not have the title.

The archihypaspist is indeed the commander of the whole hypaspist corps, including the 'agema', why Arrian does not mention this office is open to debate but likely Ptolemy only described it as 'the leader (hegemon) of the hypaspists, which is how Nikanor is described, Plutarch may well be drawing on Hieronymos who uses a more precise term. After Nikanor's death the hypaspists do appear as a whole body so one might expect Neoptolemos to appear, but this could be an instance of Ptolemy writing his enemies out of history; Neoptolemos started 320 on the side of the Perdikkans fighting against Ptolemy, had he been ordered to co-operate with Alketas ratther than Eumenes he would, presumably, have remained Perdikkan.

Thus, Diodoros' calling Hephaistion 'the leader of the somatophylakes' meaning the leader of the agema is not affected by Nikanor's position although, as I have said I prefer an alternative explanation.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Post Reply