Hoi Basilikoi Paides

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

A simple solution is not to suppose three (or more) separate Guards (two or more agemata and the Hypaspists) but rather that it is the tiered structure of the Hypaspists being described there is the agema which contains the royal Hypaspists, allowing for the plural ‘agemata’, and the rest of the Hypaspists at 8 iii and in 8 iv the troops flee to the shelter of the ‘agemata’ and the rest of the corps is not mentioned. We can deduce that the ‘agema’ was the larger group as there are references to the agema alone but the Royal Hypaspists are only mentioned alone in company with the ‘agema’ making it likely that, in the normal course of things, the ‘Royal Hypaspists fought with the ‘agema’ and are not described separately, just as the agema itself is seemingly subsumed when Arrian speaks of the Hypaspists alone.

The role of the ‘Royal Hypaspists’ at Gaugamela is controversial, with some wishing to substitute the ‘paides basilikoi’ an improbable paleographic error and given that the ‘hypaspistai basilikoi’ are attested in three other passages there seems little reason to write them out of the action here. It is equally unnecessary to suppose, as Bosworth does (Commentary I p307), that ‘Royal Hypaspists’ here means Alexander’s personal arms-bearers. Since the ‘agema and the other Hypaspists’ are accounted for in the battle-line, once again the simple solution is that the corps consisted of three tiers the Royal Hypaspists, the agema and the Hypaspists. The question then arises who exactly were the ‘Royal Hypaspists’?

I would certainly agree, with Paralus, that the Agema were the leading lochos, probably some 500 strong which also formed Alexander's Foot Guard ( later expanded to a chiliarchy, I think) of the Hypaspists, at the time of Alexander's expedition probably some 2,000 strong ( to be continued on the organisation and numbers thread, where I will ultimately post reasons for thinking this) - and to fall back on our modern analogy, the Queens Grenadier Guards first and senior company/sub-unit is called the King's company. However the use of the plural term 'agemata' of the Hypaspists is contradictory, for by definition, a unit can have only one "leading sub-unit". Since it appears only once in respect of the Hypaspists, it is more likely a copyists error.

I also agree that when Hypaspists is used alone, it is meant to be inclusive of the Agema who were part of the Hypaspists.

However I would disagree about the use of 'Royal Hypaspists', or perhaps more literally 'King's Hypaspists'/ypaspistae basilikoi. At Arrian I.8.3 Arrian's version has Perdiccas unilaterally attacking Thebes - perhaps to at least partially absolve
Alexander of its destruction - and Alexander retains in reserve under his command outside "the Agema[ta] and the Hypaspists". In the next line I.8.4, Perdiccas has been wounded, and Eurybotas the Cretan, commander of the archers killed. Their troops break and run back to the "Agema of the Makedones and the King's Hypaspists". These must be the very same reserve troops under Alexander in I.8.3, with their titles given more fully for variation at such close proximity. Again, to use our modern analogy, 'the Fusiliers', the 'Royal Fusiliers' and the 'King's Royal Regiment of Fusiliers' are all one and the same unit.

In your hypothesis, if 'Royal Hypaspists' are a sub-set of the Agema, why and where does the latter disappear to? Shouldn't we expect to see "the Royal hypaspists, the agema and the (other) Hypaspists" ?

I also agree with Paralus that if the emendation 'paides basilikoi' at Gaugemala is incorrect, and the text 'Royal Hypaspists' correct, then the likeliest explanation is that the rear ranks of the Hypaspists simply about turned to deal with the chariots. This seems more inherently probable than that a sub-unit, which can only be a couple of hundred at most, of the Agema detached itself to deal with the chariots.

Paralus wrote:

This hypaspist agema, always placed within patting remove of the horses of the ile Basilikoi (and Companion cavalry) in the battle line, had its own commander. These are the troops depicted on the Alexander sarcophagus if the depiction is historically accurate.

I don't think the Agema had any sort of independent commander - I can't find mention of one- rather we are told that Nicanor commanded both the Agema and the Hypaspists [ II.8.3 - Issus] and [III.11.9- Gaugamela]. The Agema must have had a commanding officer of course, and at Hydaspes [V.13.4] we are told Seleucus commanded them - but by then the corps had grown to (probably) four chiliarchies, a rather large and unwieldy sized 'unit', and as with other units increased in size, command by then may well have been split.......
I'd agree the troops portrayed on the sarcophagus must be the Hypaspists.

You have forgotten another passage dealing with the "royal hypaspists". At 4.24.10 Alexander, having divided his army into three, assigns one third of the royal hypaspists to Ptolemy (hupaspistōn tōn basilikōn to triton meros). If we are positing a small unit, a division into three is useless. On Hammond's numbers (the royal hypaspists being 1,000) a third hardly makes sense either. This needs to be compared with similar notices such as 5.23.7 where Ptolemy is given three chiliarchies of hypaspists (hupaspistōn autō dous khiliarkhias treis). A third of this would make far, far more sense. I would see Arrian using different terms to describe the hypaspists rather than a very small unit.

The hypaspists then are "regular" and the agema. The former Arrian refers to as "royal" or the hypaspists and the latter the agema, the agema of the Macedones, the agema basilikoi, the somatophylakes and the somatophylakes basilikoi.. Tarn might well have been right: the lot were "royal".

On the royal hypaspists at Gaugamela, can this not refer to the rear ranks of the hypaspists dealing with the break throughs? I see no reason to put them in the rear phalanx a la Hammond.

Ah, at last something I can largely agree with.....though as I said earlier, the phrase 'somatophylakes' associated with Hypaspists on four occasions outside pitched battle is ambiguous, and in my view probably does not refer to the Agema, and I would posit the size of the later Agema as a chiliarchy ( 1,000 strong) like the other units of the Hypaspists.....( but again will defer discussion of such to the dormant thread)

[Xenophon]

Yet more posts ! Ah, well I'm only a whole page behind now.......and the two of you continue to outpace me !!!

Agesilaos wrote:

...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)......

.........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.

But still, in both Greece and Rome one did not assume the full rights and obligations of manhood until what we would call 20 and the ancients 21. ( see my earlier post on classifying age ). Until relatively recently in modern times, parents had the legal right to inflict corporal punishment on their children up to age 21, though in practice few would attempt to do so beyond mid-teens. Nevertheless, under 21's were still technically children, and this is precisely Alexander's point. Paides were indeed of an age when they could still be legally beaten by a pedagogue, even if in practice this was rare. He is making the disparaging point that they are still technically 'children', not yet full adults.

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'.

Perhaps, but the inscriptional evidence shows that technically, the full rights and obligations of 'manhood' were not achieved until age 21 in Macedon, when an 'ephebe' became a 'neoi'/new man.

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.

Once again, the rules for Royalty were different ! This is not evidence for the masses. Apart from anything else, Philip V was crowned when he was apparently 17, not 18, and we have also the example of Alexander being regent at 16....but that does not mean that full manhood generally was achieved at 17 or 16....

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

I have already agreed that the word 'taxis' is best defined as generic unit of variable size, and I agree it can also be used of e.g. horse archers, mounted javelinmen etc. Nevertheless its most common use is of the heavy infantry who made up the phalanx, where it denotes what we would call brigades/divisions of (probably) a nominal 2,000 men ( discussion postponed to dormant thread), and I agree that Greek terminology can be as diverse as English.....

The etymology of phalanx is generally agreed not to derive from 'finger bone' but rather 'roller', and does indeed refer to a battle line, not necessarily Greek but anyone - see e.g. Polybius where it can be used of celtic/gallic battle lines....

BTW, 'hekatostyes' seems to generally refer to units of 100 or so....

I am familiar with Flaubert's "Salaambo".....

[agesilaos]

On hekatostyes try this thread from way back - AN OBSCURE UNIT IN ARRIAN – HEKATOSTYS, rather than further clog this thread

[Xenophon]

In an effort to get up to speed, I shan't comment in detail but will say I largely agree with Paralus' posts on page 3....... and confine myself to a couple of minor points.

Paralus wrote:

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).

Tyre has been alluded to several times, and the point made that a whole taxis, or 'the Hypaspists' could not have fitted into one ship. This is to misunderstand the situation. The two ships in question are fitted with gangplanks, and they are in effect floating siege towers. In the case of an assault via a siege tower, the assault force is not limited to those within the tower initially, but as it proceeds, men are fed into the tower, climb up and eventually cross the assault bridges/gangplanks. The same would apply to the ships. Once the 'floating siege towers' were in place, men would be fed onto them from other ships drawing up and feeding troops into the specially equipped 'assault ships', as with siege towers on land.

On the subject of 'Royal Hypaspists' or more literally 'King's Hypaspists'/ ypaspistae basilikoi', I agree that this appellation applies to the whole corps ( see previous post).

I also agree that it is apparent that outside the set-piece pitched battles ( and even these are not always entirely complete, or describe what each part of the 'battle line' did ), the 'orbats' that Arrian gives are frequently and obviously incomplete.

Paralus wrote:

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

and

............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'.

As you note, the Agrianes are definitely javelin armed 'psiloi/light troops' more specifically of the type often called 'peltasts', and as you say the army also contained a number of their similarly armed Thracian brethren, who don't share their limelight.

Agesilaos wrote:

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.

The archers of Persia itself ( as opposed to subject peoples) were not 'light troops' as such, but were the close-order battle line ( phalanx) of Persian infantry, operating behind a line/front rank set-up of large 'mantlet' type shields ( sparabara ). This was optimised to defeat Persia's main enemies, mounted nomad horse archers, but, as is widely known, a failure against armoured troops who close to hand-to-hand, such as hoplites. ( with certain notable exceptions). Significantly, when Alexander does seek to incorporate the traditional Persian archer into his army, it is into the heavy infantry phalanx.

Well, that brings me up to the point where I asked for a moratorium in vain...........

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

On hekatostyes try this thread from way back - AN OBSCURE UNIT IN ARRIAN – HEKATOSTYS, rather than further clog this thread

Thanks for that..........I wan't planning on 'further clogging this thread'....I'm all for closing Pandora's box !

[Paralus]

I would certainly agree, with Paralus, that the Agema were the leading lochos, probably some 500 strong which also formed Alexander's Foot Guard ( later expanded to a chiliarchy, I think) of the Hypaspists…

Much agreement breaking out. The king’s foot guard or “infantry agema” almost certainly paralleled the cavalry agema (ile basilikoi). That is, I’d see it as a similar “troop” to unit. That basic tactical unit was likely a speira /syntagma / insert your favourite term here. Thus I’d see it as 500 men. As to whether it was expanded, I’m not so certain.

However the use of the plural term 'agemata' of the Hypaspists is contradictory, for by definition, a unit can have only one "leading sub-unit". Since it appears only once in respect of the Hypaspists, it is more likely a copyists error.

Or an anachronistic reference to the cavalry agema. As I remarked, the Thebans had deployed cavalry and Alexander may have kept his for sweeping or covering activity in the case of a Theban breakout. An error of transmission is possible as well.

I also agree that when Hypaspists is used alone, it is meant to be inclusive of the Agema who were part of the Hypaspists.

No doubt. In fact, whenever “the hypaspists” appears it is always with the king who takes “the hypaspists” or “the agema and the hypaspists” or some other such. The only other notices, to my recollection, are battle lines in major engagements. Elsewhere we only ever have detachments given to one or another commander. Thus we should not assume that when Ptolemy is given three chiliarchies he has the entire hypaspist corps: he has what he is given by the king – three chiliarchies. Had he the lot Arrian might simply have stated (as he so often does for Alexander) that Ptolemy was given “the hypaspists”. As I’ve noted, the agema – at the very least – remained with the king.

It should also be noted that whilst the agema can be considered part of “the hypaspists” it was also considered separate. Thus Alexander trots off to Nysia with the “infantry agema” – the hypaspists are left to cool their heels.

Paralus wrote:

This hypaspist agema, always placed within patting remove of the horses of the ile Basilikoi (and Companion cavalry) in the battle line, had its own commander. These are the troops depicted on the Alexander sarcophagus if the depiction is historically accurate.

I don't think the Agema had any sort of independent commander - I can't find mention of one- rather we are told that Nicanor commanded both the Agema and the Hypaspists [ II.8.3 - Issus] and [III.11.9- Gaugamela]. The Agema must have had a commanding officer of course, and at Hydaspes [V.13.4] we are told Seleucus commanded them - but by then the corps had grown to (probably) four chiliarchies, a rather large and unwieldy sized 'unit', and as with other units increased in size, command by then may well have been split.......
I'd agree the troops portrayed on the sarcophagus must be the Hypaspists.

On the matter of a commander, I think we will agree to disagree. Admetus certainly seems to be carrying out that job and I’d continue to argue so did Hephaestion (and, of course, Seleucus).

The troops on the sarcophagus – if depicting actuality and Persians with aspides raises questions - must definitely be the agema of the hypaspists. These troops operate directly aside the royal ile (or in front of it if we take Agesilaos’ reading!) and obviously fight with it and the king. They are thus armed a fashion befitting such and are of the right number (some 500). The “regular” hypaspists are, at 3,000, a rather less tactically agile number and are a part of the main infantry line. Again, I don’t really think its numbers increased though that remains possible.

Tyre has been alluded to several times, and the point made that a whole taxis, or 'the Hypaspists' could not have fitted into one ship. This is to misunderstand the situation. The two ships in question are fitted with gangplanks, and they are in effect floating siege towers. In the case of an assault via a siege tower, the assault force is not limited to those within the tower initially, but as it proceeds, men are fed into the tower, climb up and eventually cross the assault bridges/gangplanks. The same would apply to the ships. Once the 'floating siege towers' were in place, men would be fed onto them from other ships drawing up and feeding troops into the specially equipped 'assault ships', as with siege towers on land.

I agree with the siege towers/ships rationale. On the numbers, this seems a regular thing in the sources: whole armies seem to transport themselves in ships and upon floats. The numbers (“the hypaspists” and “Coenus’ asthtaroi”) shouldn’t be taken as the whole corps on a single boat. At Hydaspes Seleucus crosses with “half the hypaspists”. This can’t be correct either and it more likely means half the agema or thereabouts.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

Thus I’d see it as 500 men. As to whether it was expanded, I’m not so certain.

Certainty is of course impossible here, as so often....we are simply assessing probabilities. One clue is that in the cavalry, the Royal Ile is generally agreed to have been larger than the others, so we would not expect the opposite in the infantry - one might expect that the Agema was at least as large as the other Hypaspist units, and certainly in practice, even where the other units might fall below strength, one would expect the Agema to have been kept up to strength, making it the largest sub-unit - lochos, or later following expansion, chiliarchy.....

It should also be noted that whilst the agema can be considered part of “the hypaspists” it was also considered separate. Thus Alexander trots off to Nysia with the “infantry agema” – the hypaspists are left to cool their heels.

Depends what you mean by 'separate'. It seems organisationally to have always been part of the Hypaspists, though as you note it could on occasion be used independently, but this was not unique to the Hypaspists - other sub-units of a taxis of the Phalanx are similarly detached on occasion.

On the matter of a commander, I think we will agree to disagree. Admetus certainly seems to be carrying out that job and I’d continue to argue so did Hephaestion (and, of course, Seleucus).

The key word I used is 'independent' - at Tyre Admetus certainly commands the Agema, but he is subordinate to Nicanor, who has the overall command of the Agema and the Hypaspists, as I noted earlier (Arrian II.8.3 and III.11.9 )

The troops on the sarcophagus – if depicting actuality and Persians with aspides raises questions - must definitely be the agema of the hypaspists. These troops operate directly aside the royal ile (or in front of it if we take Agesilaos’ reading!) and obviously fight with it and the king. They are thus armed a fashion befitting such and are of the right number (some 500). The “regular” hypaspists are, at 3,000, a rather less tactically agile number and are a part of the main infantry line. Again, I don’t really think its numbers increased though that remains possible.

I take it that you deduce this from the aspis/dory combination, which you believe was restricted to the Agema, the rest of the Hypaspists being sarissa armed. It is far more probable that the unit of hypaspists was uniformly armed - and a pointer may be the frequency with which the aspis is depicted around this time, too prominently to have been restricted to just 500 men perhaps.

When you say 'agile' I hope you are not implying that the Agema went haring off with Alexander and the cavalry, like some sort of 'hamippoi,' for they are 'heavy' armoured infantry/hoplites and their post was almost certainly to be the important extreme right flank of the phalanx. IIRC, if we hear of infantry operating amongst the cavalry, it is the agrianes, as we might expect, who carry out this function.........

[Paralus]

Depends what you mean by 'separate'. It seems organisationally to have always been part of the Hypaspists, though as you note it could on occasion be used independently, but this was not unique to the Hypaspists - other sub-units of a taxis of the Phalanx are similarly detached on occasion.

I'll leave aside the taxis/phalanx thing: you and Agesilaos can have that.

Now, aside from units crossing on boats or otherwise, can you provide me evidence of "other sub-units of a taxis of the Phalanx" being detached? Whole taxeis are deputed to commanders as far as I can recall.

The key word I used is 'independent' - at Tyre Admetus certainly commands the Agema, but he is subordinate to Nicanor, who has the overall command of the Agema and the Hypaspists, as I noted earlier (Arrian II.8.3 and III.11.9 )

One is tempted to ask "where is the commander of the hypaspists?" Not with the king is the resounding answer. He is conspicuously absent in all of the actions where the king takes "his hypaspists". Perhaps he rested in his tent?

The troops on the sarcophagus – if depicting actuality and Persians with aspides raises questions - must definitely be the agema of the hypaspists. These troops operate directly aside the royal ile (or in front of it if we take Agesilaos’ reading!) and obviously fight with it and the king. They are thus armed a fashion befitting such and are of the right number (some 500). The “regular” hypaspists are, at 3,000, a rather less tactically agile number and are a part of the main infantry line. Again, I don’t really think its numbers increased though that remains possible.

I take it that you deduce this from the aspis/dory combination, which you believe was restricted to the Agema, the rest of the Hypaspists being sarissa armed. It is far more probable that the unit of hypaspists was uniformly armed - and a pointer may be the frequency with which the aspis is depicted around this time, too prominently to have been restricted to just 500 men perhaps.

I believe you know my view. The agema, in my view, is still the king's "noble guard". These are the scions of the nobility and are well able to afford a hoplite panoply. Thus you have the burials and the "prominent depictions" of such.

When you say 'agile' I hope you are not implying that the Agema went haring off with Alexander and the cavalry, like some sort of 'hamippoi,' for they are 'heavy' armoured infantry/hoplites and their post was almost certainly to be the important extreme right flank of the phalanx. IIRC, if we hear of infantry operating amongst the cavalry, it is the agrianes, as we might expect, who carry out this function.........

Well, let's see what I wrote:

The “regular” hypaspists are, at 3,000, a rather less tactically agile number and are a part of the main infantry line.

What I am saying is that the "regular" hypaspists - at 3,000 - are a far less tatically mobile force in a battle line than the 500 man agema. If the Alexander Sarcophagus is a "picture" then the troops amongst the cavalry are the king's foot guard. I do not, necessarily, see it as a "pictue" though. Nowhere have I suggested that the agema performs the task of hamippoi. Indeed, I've claimed (elsewhere) that this is the role of the Agrianians. The agema would always, in pitched battle, find itself amongst the king's cavalry. Proximity demands it.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

I'll leave aside the taxis/phalanx thing: you and Agesilaos can have that.

Now, aside from units crossing on boats or otherwise, can you provide me evidence of "other sub-units of a taxis of the Phalanx" being detached? Whole taxeis are deputed to commanders as far as I can recall.

Whatever do you mean?....Agesilaos and I are in total agreement and perfect accord on the meaning of Greek military terminology.
Some examples I can think of, of references to detachments are III.23.3 where Alexander takes 'some'of the archers and 'the most mobile/nimble of the phalanx' - obviously these men are detached from their parent units; IV.23.1 where the 'etairoi ippeus' have been split between Alexander and Hephaistion - that is into two detachments, and 800 Macedonian infantry have been detached from their units to be mounted. Similarly at III.21.8, 500 Infantry officers and men are detached and mounted during the pursuit of Darius. At III.29.7 Ptolemy is sent to collect Bessus with a detachment consisting of 3 Hipparchia of Companion cavalry, all the agrianes, half the archers plus the taxis of Philotas -both the cavalry and archers are detachments from their parent units. Similarly at IV.6.3 Alexander takes just half the Companion cavalry and inter alia, 'phalaggos kouphatatous'/nimblest of the phalanx are detached from their parent units to pursue Spitamenes. At IV.24.1 inter alia, Alexander has half the Companion cavalry ( 4 hipparchies) and half the mounted archers/hippotoxitai. Similarly at VI.6.1 the Companion cavalry are split into two detachments....and I suspect a number of other occasions when both infantry and cavalry detachments are utilised....

One is tempted to ask "where is the commander of the hypaspists?" Not with the king is the resounding answer. He is conspicuously absent in all of the actions where the king takes "his hypaspists". Perhaps he rested in his tent?

When the King is present, he is obviously the commander and takes precedence over poor Nicanor. The fact that he is not mentioned in the narrative is not evidence that he was not there ( where else would he be?) Second-in-commands rarely get mentioned in military histories because they are normally doing mundane things like commanding the reserves in the rear. Admetus gets a mention because he leads the 'forlorn hope', is first over the breach and dies bravely leading his men.

I believe you know my view.

....a purely speculative view at best. I don't recall any actual evidence, and as I remarked earlier, doing sentry duty in all weathers, chopping wood etc and the other lowly tasks of the ordinary soldier is pretty improbable.....not a career for 'scions of the nobility'. Officers, yes, in training for better things, other ranks no, and it was ever thus........

What I am saying is that the "regular" hypaspists - at 3,000 - are a far less tatically mobile force in a battle line than the 500 man agema. If the Alexander Sarcophagus is a "picture" then the troops amongst the cavalry are the king's foot guard. I do not, necessarily, see it as a "pictue" though. Nowhere have I suggested that the agema performs the task of hamippoi. Indeed, I've claimed (elsewhere) that this is the role of the Agrianians. The agema would always, in pitched battle, find itself amongst the king's cavalry. Proximity demands it.

You must be aware that the Alexander sarcophagus has some 'reality shortcomings' including heroic nudity, and the jumbling of protagonists, both Persian and Macedonian, randomly ?
...amongst the King's cavalry ? That would indeed make them Hamippoi, for that is precisely their role. It is a terrible old saw that the Hypaspists, or Agema provided a 'lighter infantry link' between cavalry and phalanx. It is just not physically possible. Certainly at the start of a battle, the Agema, as leading unit of the army on the march would take up the post of honour as 'the right of the line' and part of the phalanx of all the close-order 'heavy' infantry, with Alexander and his Companions posted to their immediate right. Now if the cavalry take up the role of defending the right flank from opposing cavalry, then they stay in contact, but a defensive role for the Companions was never Alexander's way. At Granicus, assuming Arrian's account is the correct one, given the struggle across the river the Agema would have fought side-by-side with the leftmost Ile of the Companions. At Issus, as the army advanced, Alexander and the cavalry drifted right, doubtless with the Agema and Hypaspists marching hard to try and stay in contact. But contact must have been broken, for Alexander set off at the gallop at the Persian left-wing cavalry. No infantry could have kept up with galloping horses, or even trotting ones ( except very fit light infantry 'hamippoi' in the latter case). Worse still, the stretch to the right caused part of the phalanx to break up and become disordered. At Gaugemala, much the same, only this time it was the Persians who overstretched, attempting to prevent the oblique march of Alexander's 'box', and the Companions at once charged into the gap/weak spot, as well as the heavy infantry of the right. Once again, contact will have been lost as the cavalry charged but perhaps regained once the cavalry were temporarily halted by the fighting. At Hydaspes, the infantry and cavalry effectively fought separate actions. Nowhere are we told that the Hypaspists and their Agema do anything other than form part of the Phalanx, and not even a hint that the Agema took off independently to join the fighting 'amongst the King's cavalry'. Nor should we expect such, for that was simply not the role of 'heavy' close order infantry.

Proximity might produce fighting side-by-side on occasion, but not 'amongst', not even interspersed with.

[Xenophon]

A tidying up note from the previous page:

Paralus wrote:

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.

As Agesilaos noted, the term 'archihypaspist', in use in Hellenistic times, occurs only in Plutarch and thus may be an anachronism. Plutarch "Eumenes"[ I] describes Neoptolemus thus:

....Therefore when Neoptolemus, the commander of the Shield-bearers/Hypaspists, after Alexander's death, said that he had followed the king with shield/aspis and spear/longche, but Eumenes with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed him to scorn;

As I remarked earlier, with the growth of the unit to (probably) 4 chiliarchies/4000 strong, this would be a very large and unwieldy unit to have a single commander - twice the size of a taxis of sarissaphoroi/pikemen - hence we only hear of chiliarchs .

[agesilaos]

I will let the question of numbers rest for the dormant thread, but there is nothing contradictory in plural ‘agemata’ being applied to the Hypaspists (or part thereof), the sense of the word has moved on from its original meaning to signify an elite unit, one might cite as a poor analogy the flank companies of Napoleonic battalions, light/voltigeur/jager and grenadier.

Were ‘agemata’ a copyist’s error then one should be able to explain how the error arose, since there is no clear reason, dittography or a possible corruption, for instance, and given that the sentence makes good sense, the text should stand. Arrian suffers greatly from ‘improvement’ by editors who ‘know better’; emending texts to conform to the accepted wisdom is not good practice. We can, however, ask what is meant by this aberrant plural; Paralus’ anachronistic use of ‘agema’ for the ile basilikos is superficially attractive, but in these early chapters Arrian, reflecting Ptolemy’s usage, seems blissfully unaware of later developments in nomenclatura, to such an extent that the common phalangite is a hoplite. That is hardly conclusive, so must remain a possibility, however, the Hypaspists are divided into agema, basilikoi and alloi on other occaisions; were it not for received wisdom the most natural solution would be that the agema and hypaspistai basilikoi were both Guard/elite formations and that Ptolemy decided a plural was appropriate but later, subsumed the smallest unit into the larger, just as we see with the agema and the hypaspistai, except when he wanted to note their separate action, as at Gaugamela and the Hydaspes.

Those fleeing from Thebes simply run to the end of the line occupied by the two ‘agemata’, the one whose title is ‘the agema of the Macedonians’ and ‘the hypaspistai basilikoi’; the agema in this second instance is certainly singular, so it could be argued that the HB are the rest of the Hypaspists were all three not mentioned together later. Berve saw this, but ever since the drive has been to explain away the other, differentiated mentions, somewhat perverse.

The rear rank theory won’t wash either unless one believes the Hypaspists were as a man armed differently from the phalanx in pitched battles. Aside from the impossibility of such a manoeuvre, there is no recorded drill for this potentially useful trick, just what is the Hypaspist meant to do? Drop his sarissa and chase after chariots with a sword he may not have? Or, maybe ask the charioteers to wait while he re-equips from the stores? How much more likely Alexander told off a small group stationed them behind the lines with the appropriate equipment, ie javelins. The chariots reaching the second line was, after all the plan.

At V 13 iv Seleukos is NOT the commander of the agema but of the Hypaspistai basilikoi.

The most notable thing about the ‘Sarcophagus’ is the complete lack of any Macedonian rimless shields, it was carved by a Greek and uses Greek conventions. If four chiliarchies is an unwieldy command then one must wonder at Alexander continually lumbering Krateros with either a similar command by my view, or an even larger one on Xenophon’s in all the Persian battles.

Since you are both (I presume others do read these threads, but will address my fellow posters) impressed by the ‘ships as siege tower’ line. This is simply not what Arrian says, the rest of the fleet was off attacking the walls elsewhere and the two ships take advantage of the Tyrians’ distraction to throw their ‘gephyrai’ ‘bridges’ from their prows onto the breach, no daisy chain of trieremes was formed nor were the forces with Alexander reinforced. Such support would be awkward in the extreme, boarding was not a simple manoeuvre (it would seem that Athenian marines would go into battle seated on the deck and, on the evidence of Thucydides, trained to throw javelins whilst in such a position) the awkwardness of approaching another ship with its outriggers, oars still in action to keep the ship against the wall and high stern would preclude the scenario you envisage. What we have, in Arrian, is a ‘coup-de-main’ by a small and elite force. Alexander attacks the walls at every point forcing the Tyrians to spread their forces and then overwhelms them at his chosen ‘point d’appui’.

With regard to the Agrianes, they are never styled ‘peltastoi’ only ‘psiloi’, they are distinct from the general ‘psiloi’ by virtue of their greater elan not any superior fighting style. Since we are all in agreement that they were psiloi it seems odd that just because Arrian styles them thus in this passage you (and most translators it must be admitted!) wish to change a clear and valid Greek construction to fit a modern theory; had anybody else attempted such I dare say we would all be on them faster than a dingo on a baby.

Xerxes’ Persians certainly fought in a ‘sparabara’ ‘takabara’ combination, an Eastern way of war for centuries. But Dareios III seems not to have used this tactical system. Graneikos and Gaugamela are both cavalry fights and at Issos the only front line Persian infantry are the Kardakes who seem to be a kind of ersatz hoplite rather than the former close order archer/ spearman.

The ‘mixed phalanx’ contains not just Persian archers but also Cossaean and Tapurian javelinmen, I doubt you are suggesting these fought in close order, shoulder to shoulder, in their mountain fastnesses. Alexander ordered them into the phalanx to boost its distant strike potential whilst planning to attack a skirmishing cavalry enemy and to make best use of those few Macedonians remaining. The formation reflects the wishes of el Supremo not the fighting styles of the component parts. In Eumenes’ armies Peucastas also appears with a multitude of Persian archers these do not appear in the main battle line but must be in the undifferentiated light infantry screen, XIX 27-8 and 40.

Now I see another post , so I’ stop and read it then get back.

[Paralus]

Were ‘agemata’ a copyist’s error then one should be able to explain how the error arose, since there is no clear reason, dittography or a possible corruption, for instance, and given that the sentence makes good sense, the text should stand. Arrian suffers greatly from ‘improvement’ by editors who ‘know better’; emending texts to conform to the accepted wisdom is not good practice.

I do not, necessarily, disagree. As I remarked earlier, I do not see there is any reason to ignore the use of cavalry here. Both Arrian and Diodorus note that the Thebans deployed cavalry and Diodorus notes that Alexander had 3,000 cavalry with him. Whilst one doesn't assault a wall with cavalry one does use it to harry and corral defenders. Diodorus' description makes far more sense than that of Ptolemy (Arrian). The latter is far too interested in deprecating Perdiccas. Diodorus (17.11.1) makes plain the Theban army deployed outside the walls to confront the Macedonians. Alexander deployed (as in near every other siege to follow) in separate army groups (three here) "and ordered one to take the palisades which had been erected before the city, the second to face the Theban battle line, and the third as a reserve to support any hard pressed unit of his forces and to enter the battle in its turn". The cavalry will have been in attendance and, almost certainly, in the "reserve" division. This is what Alexander, in Arrian, holds back. I would certainly think the royal ile would be with him here if no other.

We can, however, ask what is meant by this aberrant plural; Paralus’ anachronistic use of ‘agema’ for the ile basilikos is superficially attractive, but in these early chapters Arrian, reflecting Ptolemy’s usage, seems blissfully unaware of later developments in nomenclatura, to such an extent that the common phalangite is a hoplite.

And so to terminology. I don’t see anything greatly surprising in the use of “hoplite” to describe “heavy” infantrymen. This is simply a generic description rather than technical. Other matters are less simple.

If Arrian was “blissfully unaware of later developments in nomenclatura” his sources were most certainly not. Both of his main sources wrote in an age when agema had become the standard term for the king’s cavalry guard (and, as I’ve noted before, it is interesting that Diodorus very often uses philoi for hetairoi). To accept your observation that Arrian didn’t have the nous to alter his source’s terminology, agemata must have appeared in his source (Ptolemy). Now, Ptolemy certainly knew what he was writing about and wasn’t always in the habit of explaining such. If the royal ile was here (and I’m sure it was) he’s describing the fact that Alexander’s kept the infantry and cavalry agemata, along with the hypaspists, back.

Whilst this introduces the notion of anachronism, it is not the only time. At 1.24.3 Arrian has Alexander send Parmenion off with “a hipparchy” of the hetairoi. Adaios, who is killed at Halicarnassus, is χιλιάρχης and serves under the command of the Somatophylax Ptolemy. He is very unlikely to be leading light troops for they are designated separately. I agree with Bosworth that the simplest solution is hypaspists. From memory, the only other troops designated as chiliarchies are the archers (and possibly the javelin men?). Arrian, though, never seems to fail to use their names.

The rear rank theory won’t wash either unless one believes the Hypaspists were as a man armed differently from the phalanx in pitched battles. Aside from the impossibility of such a manoeuvre, there is no recorded drill for this potentially useful trick, just what is the Hypaspist meant to do? Drop his sarissa and chase after chariots with a sword he may not have? Or, maybe ask the charioteers to wait while he re-equips from the stores? How much more likely Alexander told off a small group stationed them behind the lines with the appropriate equipment, ie javelins. The chariots reaching the second line was, after all the plan.

I see the agema as armed in the fashion of those “guards” in the late fourth century Aghios Athenasios fresco: rimless Macedonian shield and spear (or longche). Easy enough to turn about. I see no reason whatsoever for the king’s personal foot guard to be placed in the second line: the agema and the hypaspists are in the main battle line and Arrian fails to record any unit of note in the second line. The grooms are hardly to be imagined as forming part of a second infantry line – they are simply in the rear of the Companion cavalry which is exactly next to the rear ranks of the agema. The second line was palced there in the event of encirclement – not that they’d fail to send to hades any who came their way.

At V 13 iv Seleukos is NOT the commander of the agema but of the Hypaspistai basilikoi.

And that is true. If this has not been somewhat garbled in transmission, it is your strongest point. My view is that the number of the agema is a pentakosiarchy (or, as Xenophon argues, twice the basic tactical unit of the phalanx “battalion” 16x16 men). If the hypaspistae basilikoi are as you suppose then one might suppose that they are one such unit. Arrian’s remark that Seleucus crossed with Alexander and “half the hypaspists” might then make sense. There is no way 750 – 1,000 crammed into this boat but there is a far better chance of a 125 or so fitting (if, based on chiliarchies, they are possibly in decads).

And if that seems an insurmountable difficulty for my view, there are similar such for your own construction. The first of which I have already mentioned: there is little point in dividing such a unit into three; it makes very little sense. It is far more likely that Arrian is indicating a chiliarchy rather than a sub unit (of a third) of a sub unit.

The second is Thebes. Unless we suppose there was an agema of the agema, there can only be one infantry agema. Accepting the premise that the hypaspistae basilikoi are a subset of the agema, it is then redundant in the extreme to refer to the agema and the hypaspistae basilikoi as “agemata”. On your reasoning Arrian (or his source) does not differentiate when the two are deployed together (as for Nysia). It would, then, be far simpler for him to say “the agema” as he does many a time elsewhere. Again, there can only be the one infantry agema not two. It might be noted that there is no such split for the cavalry agema.

On the other hand if by “agemata” Arrian means the infantry agema and the cavalry agema, then there is a far more sensible reason for the plural

The most notable thing about the ‘Sarcophagus’ is the complete lack of any Macedonian rimless shields, it was carved by a Greek and uses Greek conventions.

Yes. As I noted above, I believe the Aghios Athanaios fresco is far more indicative of these troops. And, whilst on the sarcophagus, let me just answer Xenophon: I believe I noted my concerns as to its historical accuracy mentioning aspide carrying Persians as one example? That said, I would agree with Agesilaos here.

Since you are both (I presume others do read these threads, but will address my fellow posters) impressed by the ‘ships as siege tower’ line. This is simply not what Arrian says, the rest of the fleet was off attacking the walls elsewhere and the two ships take advantage of the Tyrians’ distraction to throw their ‘gephyrai’ ‘bridges’ from their prows onto the breach, no daisy chain of trieremes was formed nor were the forces with Alexander reinforced.

Well what is good for the goose is just as good for the gander. If we stick with what Arrian simply says, we are required to believe that the other ship contained “Koinos’ taxis of asthetairoi”. Presumably, as it is impossible for Koinos' entire taxis to be on board, this might be one of Xenophon’s “sub units” of a phalanx battalion?

[Paralus]

This will need to be quick - other matters to attend to...

Paralus wrote:

Now, aside from units crossing on boats or otherwise, can you provide me evidence of "other sub-units of a taxis of the Phalanx" being detached? Whole taxeis are deputed to commanders as far as I can recall.

Whatever do you mean?....Agesilaos and I are in total agreement and perfect accord on the meaning of Greek military terminology.
Some examples I can think of, of references to detachments are III.23.3 where Alexander takes 'some'of the archers and 'the most mobile/nimble of the phalanx' - obviously these men are detached from their parent units; IV.23.1 where the 'etairoi ippeus' have been split between Alexander and Hephaistion - that is into two detachments, and 800 Macedonian infantry have been detached from their units to be mounted. Similarly at III.21.8, 500 Infantry officers and men are detached and mounted during the pursuit of Darius. At III.29.7 Ptolemy is sent to collect Bessus with a detachment consisting of 3 Hipparchia of Companion cavalry, all the agrianes, half the archers plus the taxis of Philotas -both the cavalry and archers are detachments from their parent units. Similarly at IV.6.3 Alexander takes just half the Companion cavalry and inter alia, 'phalaggos kouphatatous'/nimblest of the phalanx are detached from their parent units to pursue Spitamenes. At IV.24.1 inter alia, Alexander has half the Companion cavalry ( 4 hipparchies) and half the mounted archers/hippotoxitai. Similarly at VI.6.1 the Companion cavalry are split into two detachments....and I suspect a number of other occasions when both infantry and cavalry detachments are utilised....

You've done rather a bit of reading to collect all those notices. Unfortunately none address the issue. Firstly, the cavalry was not the object of the question for it is always organised by individual ile and later hyparchies by which it is then dispatched. The question was directed at your statement that "other sub-units of a taxis of the Phalanx are similarly detached on occasion". Secondly, what I wrote was "whilst the agema can be considered part of “the hypaspists” it was also considered separate". Thus, whilst the agema was a part of the hypaspists it was also considered a separate unit. This unit being a single, identifiable corporate entity. None of what you've adduced above demonstrates that there were similar identifiable individual units of the phalanx. These are all ad hoc arrangements where Alexander selects individuals of the regular phalanx units not regular sub units. Taking half the archers is not taking as specific sub unit of the archers; ditto "some" and half the mounted archers. None of these are a named distinct unit like the agema. I doubt anyone is suggesting there was a sub unit of the phalanx called the "kouphatatoi"

On the subject of the agema and the cavalry, Arrian is quite clear that, at Gaugamela, Alexander formed a wedge with his cavalry and the infantry in his vicinity. This infantry - on his left side - can only be the agema and the hypaspists. They - together - drive into the gap. As the melee develops it is likely, to me, that some mixing would become inevitable (hence the individuals on the sarcophagus and the infantryman at Alexander's elbow on the Mosaic). This is not to say that the agema acted as hammipoi.

[agesilaos]

I must remove for three days, though not to Eleusis, merely to the mysteries of IT; AHL be baach!

[Paralus]

Not to digress into tactics, but a few points need clearing up.

It is a terrible old saw that the Hypaspists, or Agema provided a 'lighter infantry link' between cavalry and phalanx. It is just not physically possible.

And I have not claimed so nor argued the "lighter infantry link".

At Issus, as the army advanced, Alexander and the cavalry drifted right, doubtless with the Agema and Hypaspists marching hard to try and stay in contact. But contact must have been broken, for Alexander set off at the gallop at the Persian left-wing cavalry. No infantry could have kept up with galloping horses, or even trotting ones ( except very fit light infantry 'hamippoi' in the latter case). Worse still, the stretch to the right caused part of the phalanx to break up and become disordered.

I think you see far too much of Gaugamela in this action and I don't think that much of that is supported by the sources. If anything is clear in Arrian's description it is Alexander's wish to fill out the battle line as the plain widens (2.8.1-4; 8.9,2.9.2-4). Arrian says nothing of an advance to the right (as he clearly does at Gaugamela) and, in fact, gives incontrovertible orders for Parmenion "not to lose touch with the coast". Any planned move to the right, with the infantry obviously following, makes this order absolutely nonsensical for Parmenion would be left posted. What is decribed is Alexander feeding units into his right wing to "fill it up" and / or extend it rather than a march to the right.

Arrian (or his source) makes much of the difficulties of the river. Many a modern scholar has attempted to explain just how Alexander "charged" across a river (as he naturally didn't do at Granicus) which was difficult to cross with palisades in easier crossing places (2.10.1). Whilst he may have forded at flat spot, one would naturally assume that further up - towards the hills - the river is likely more broken and swifter. It is difficult to see him charging across this river.

In any case, the cavalry cross the river and break the Persian left on contact. The phalanx follows and, in the crossing of the river, become disjointed in their front rows. Arrian is clear that the cause of this is the river ("the banks were steep at many points" 2.10.5 - cf. the description at 2.10.1). Nowhere does he claim this breech was caused by Alexander's rightward advance.

At the crisis of the battle, with the phalanx in trouble and the Greeks pressing, the "battalions of the right" wheel left to take the attacking Greeks in the flank. These "battalions" can only be Alexander, the hypaspists and the lights with them.

Nowhere are we told that the Hypaspists and their Agema do anything other than form part of the Phalanx, and not even a hint that the Agema took off independently to join the fighting 'amongst the King's cavalry'. Nor should we expect such, for that was simply not the role of 'heavy' close order infantry.

Nor have I claimed such. Whilst the sarcophagus employs artistic license (and Greek norms as Agesilaos says) I do not find some mixing in a melee - especially Issus and Gaugamela - in any way fantastic. As is well known, battles take a life of their own.