Neoptolemos: the invisible Archihypaspist

[agesilaos]

By your understanding of III 18 I (not iv) are we to conclude that the Macedonian phalanx was lightly armed rather than part of the ‘baryteron hwplismenoi’ heavily equipped? Funnily enough Arrian and therefore Ptolemy, in all probability does not. At II 4 iii the phalanx is clearly part of the ‘baryteron hwplismenoi’ as the contingent Alexander takes with him consists of the Hypaspists, the archers and the Agrianes. A division further borne out by IV 25 v

II 4 iii καὶ ἀφικόμενος ἐπὶ τὸ Κύρου τοῦ ξὺν Ξενοφῶντι στρατόπεδον, ὡς κατεχομένας τὰς πύλας φυλακαῖς ἰσχυραῖς εἶδε, Παρμενίωνα μὲν αὐτοῦ καταλείπει σὺν ταῖς τάξεσι τῶν πεζῶν, ὅσοι βαρύτερον ὡπλισμένοι ἦσαν. αὐτὸς δὲ ἀμφὶ πρώτην φυλακὴν ἀναλαβὼν τούς τε ὑπασπιστὰς καὶ τοὺς τοξότας καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας προῆγε τῆς νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὰς πύλας, ὡς οὐ προσδεχομένοις τοῖς φύλαξιν ἐπιπεσεῖν

III 18 i ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὰ μὲν σκευοφόρα καὶ τοὺς Θεσσαλοὺς ἱππέας καὶ τοὺς ξυμμάχους καὶ τοὺς μισθοφόρους τοὺς ξένους καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι τοῦ στρατεύματος βαρύτερον ὡπλισμένοι ξὺν Παρμενίωνι ἐκπέμπει ὡς ἐπὶ Πέρσας ἄγειν κατὰ τὴν ἁμαξιτὸν τὴν ἐς Πέρσας φέρουσαν. [2] αὐτὸς δὲ τούς τε Μακεδόνας τοὺς πεζοὺς ἀναλαβὼν καὶ τὴν ἵππον τὴν ἑταιρικὴν καὶ τοὺς προδρόμους ἱππέας καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ τοὺς τοξότας ᾔει σπουδῇ τὴν διὰ τῶν ὀρῶν.

IV 25 v κρατερὸς μὲν δὴ ἐκτετειχικὼς ἤδη τὴν πόλιν, ἐφ᾽ ἧς τῷ οἰκισμῷ κατελέλειπτο, τούς τε βαρύτερον ὡπλισμένους τῆς στρατιᾶς Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἦγεν καὶ τὰς μηχανάς, εἴ που πολιορκίας δεήσειεν.

Something is clearly amiss with III 18 I, provable by comparison with II 4 and IV 25, and it is easy to see what it is, Arrian means that the ‘heavy armed of the Macedonian foot‘ went with Parmenion while Alexander took the usual suspects over the mountain; the Hypaspists, the Agrianes and archers along with the Companion cavalry (who were as heavily equipped as the Thessalian cavalry in the supposedly heavier armed group) and the prodromoi. It is a common enough division, supplemented in latter times with Alexander taking the ‘nimblest of the phalanx’ on occasion; since the ‘baryteron’ is applied only to the Macedonians it has nothing to say about the equipment of the ‘foreign mercenaries’. Similarly, all those Balkan peltasts (7,000 Odrysai, Triballoi and Illyrians according to Diod.XVII 17 iv) are classed with the heavies at II 4. Arrian’s source is concerned with differentiating the Macedonian foot.

If you do not want Seleukos's son, Ptolemy, to be a hypaspist then you do need to explain those 'notable Macedonians'.

[Paralus]

Something is clearly amiss with III 18 I, provable by comparison with II 4 and IV 25, and it is easy to see what it is, Arrian means that the ‘heavy armed of the Macedonian foot‘ went with Parmenion while Alexander took the usual suspects over the mountain; the Hypaspists, the Agrianes and archers along with the Companion cavalry (who were as heavily equipped as the Thessalian cavalry in the supposedly heavier armed group) and the prodromoi. It is a common enough division, supplemented in latter times with Alexander taking the ‘nimblest of the phalanx’ on occasion; since the ‘baryteron’ is applied only to the Macedonians it has nothing to say about the equipment of the ‘foreign mercenaries’. Similarly, all those Balkan peltasts (7,000 Odrysai, Triballoi and Illyrians according to Diod.XVII 17 iv) are classed with the heavies at II 4. Arrian’s source is concerned with differentiating the Macedonian foot.

If Arrian means the "heavy armed of the Macedonian foot" foot went with Parmenion then we are left to conclude that the phalanx divisions of Krateros, Meleaghros, Perdiccas, Amyntas and Koinos (3.18.4-6) are not of the "heavy armed"?

If you do not want Seleukos's son, Ptolemy, to be a hypaspist then you do need to explain those 'notable Macedonians'.

Well, as I wrote above, Ptolemy son of Seleukos was an officer of the agema as his description at his appointment to co-command of the neogamoi shows; he was also a different man to either of the Ptolemys at Halicarnassus. As I've shown in the above earlier post, it is not possible that this man was still an officer in the agema by the time we get to Issos. On his return he is promoted to 'brigade' commander of a phalanx division - one located just left of centre - where he dies along with 120 other 'notable' Macedonians.

If you want Seleukos's son, Ptolemy, to be a hypaspist then you do need to explain just how, on succeeding him in his command, Polyperkhon inherits a phalanx battalion (placed just left of centre at Gaugamela) and not a command of hypaspists (2.12.2).

[Xenophon]

Another sixty-four posts….

(sigh) Yes, seemingly. We have now been around this mulberry bush twice, without a shred of evidence for your assertions regarding Neoptolemus succeeding Nicanor emerging, and the reasonably strong evidence for there being no overall commander of the Hypaspists after Nicanor's death being studiously ignored....because it cannot be reasonably refuted. Case closed - or should be!

The argument that the infantry reforms of Sittakene relate to the hypaspists corps rest, in the greater part, upon the fact that chiliarchies are created. On your own logic, if "the implication is all, including the phalanx”, the Macedonian phalanx is reduced to four units commanded by eight chiliarchs (not including hypaspists). There is no attestation of phalangite chiliarchs in Alexander’s army.

This simply isn't so. Chiliarchies are indeed created [Curtius V.3] "the first time the forces were divided into that number." ( note: forces, not Hypaspists ). Moreover 8 chiliarchs are appointed at this time, and perhaps others on other occasions, and since there are reckoned no more than 4 chiliarchies of Hypaspists then some, if not all, of these are appointed to the phalanx. Previously, each 'Taxis' of the phalanx had been divided into sub-units 4 lochoi of 512 men ( yes, I know some reckon three, but that discussion must await the 'numbers' thread), but from this point on would consist of 2 chiliarchies of 1,024 men for a nominal total of 2,048 in a phalanx 'Taxis'. as before. The reason there is no mention of phalangite chiliarchs is simple. Whilst the largest individual unit of Hypaspists was henceforth a chiliarchy commanded by a chiliarch, in the phalanx it was only a sub-unit, and the largest individual unit remained the Taxis, commanded by Taxiarchs such as Coenus and Craterus....

I don't understand why you think the Macedonian sarissaphoroi phalanx is 'reduced' to just four units ? The phalanx Taxeis are now made up of two 'chiliarchys' instead of the previous 4 'lochoi', in all probability.

So, as I say, the main reason for supposing this reform refers to the hypaspists is the creation of chiliarchs. The only attested Macedonian infantry so brigaded in Alexander’s army are the hypaspists. Your “later manuals” are simply that: not relevant here.

See above. There must have been chilarchies in the phalanx on the strength of Curtius' evidence.The fact that Curtius refers to at least 8 means that the rank and organisation was not just restricted to the Hypaspists - indeed it would be perverse to suggest this, based on the evidence we have.The fact that later, chiliarchies are attested as sub-units of the phalanx is corrobarative of this, and shows continuity.
"...not relevant here"? On what do you base that, other than that it's an inconvenient piece of evidence which doesn't suit your point ? We have two 'dots' of information - that Alexander introduced 'chiliarchies' to the Macedonian army, and that later, the same Macedonian phalanx still had sub-units of chiliarchies. That suggests continuity of organisation, with only some minor name changes along the way.

Paralus wrote

I’m afraid that this does not follow. In all set piece battles the king commands the right and, until his murder, Parmenion the left. In every such situation we are informed that the hypaspists, under the command of Nikanor, held the right wing of the infantry phalanx whilst, on the left, Krateros commanded the left wing of the infantry phalanx. Thus the overall command of the right (and the army) was Alexander and the overall command of the left was Parmenion. Removal of the commander of the hypaspists means the right is no longer in keeping with the left. Moreover, it makes little military sense to remove a commander of the most important infantry unit of the most important wing.

Most of this is irrelevant, since after the death of Nicanor from illness in the Spring or early Summer of 330 after Gaugemala, the only major battle is Hydaspes, which does not conform to the ‘standard’ deployment. There, Alexander took a large detachment away some 17 miles to the LEFT flank to cross the river. On that occasion he seems to have commanded the Hypaspists as a whole in person. Evidently Alexander did not agree with you that not having a separate commander of the Hypaspists made “little military sense” – not even when the three chiliarchies are on detached service, when one of the Chiliarchs, Antiochus is given temporary command of all three. [Arrian 4.30.6 ]


A “detachment” some 13,000 strong including two phalanx divisions (one of your “training” missions for the somatophylakes?) It is clear that whilst he took the hypaspists a whole, he did not command them in person in the actual battle. The narrative has the hypaspists as part of the phalanx centre and Alexander’s cavalry charge as an entirely separate action.

Is there a point to your comment, other than the unnecessary sarcasm ?

We are not told who, if anyone was commander of the phalanx under Alexander's command at Hydaspes. As to numbers, whilst the paper strength of the units concerned adds up to 13,000, in a rare example, Arrian tells us that the actual number was 11,000 - 5,000 cavalry and 6,000 infantry - and evidently the infantry are 25% down on their nominal strength.( or 12.5 % for those who think a phalanx Taxis numbered only 1,500 men )

As far as Nikanor is concerned, he died late in the spring the year following Gaugamela. Curtius places the reorganisation of the hypaspists (?) following the departure from Babylon. You are correct that “the re-organisation of the Macedonian army probably did not take place overnight at Sittakene/Susa”. What did happen at Sittakene is the reorganisation of a section of the Macedonian infantry – not the entire army (the splitting of the Companion cavalry comes later as does the addition of Asian cavalry for example) – unless you wish to dismiss your own oft referred to passage of Curtius. After this reorganisation (and expansion of the hypaspists to a size not conducive to one man’s control), Nikanor is still referred to unequivocally as commander of the hypaspists.

Well, I am glad we agree about the approximate timing of Nicanor's death, and the fact that he held his position until his death, at which time he may or may not have commanded four chiliarchies - which doesn't alter the fact that Arrian does not mention any successor, either at this point or later, not to mention the other evidence I have referred to repeatedly, of there NOT being another commander of Hypaspists........it is simply not good historical method to baldly assert an opinion, whilst not in possession of all the relevant facts, and to turn a Nelsonian blind eye to evidence which is contrary to that (wrong) opinion.
....and I simply suggested 'control' along with'politics' as two possible reasons why Alexander didn't appoint a commander. As I remarked elsewhere, only Alexander knew his reasons.

Incidently, it is quite wrong to suggest that only the infantry were re-organised at Susa/Sittakene, for Arrian [III.16.11] says that from then on, each 'Ile'/squadron was formed of two 'lochoi'/companies where previously there had been none.

My point on the balance of army command still remains. You, yourself, claimed that the removal of a commander of the hypaspists brought the command structure of the right into balance with that of the left. This, as I’ve shown, is a nonsense.

No, you simply misinterpreted what I wrote, and as it wasn't germane to the question under discussion, I did not bother to correct the matter.

That the right required a commander of the infantry is surely indicated by the fact that the left of the phalanx required such. More so in fact. The left, in all the major battles related, is the ‘holding’ wing – no decisive cavalry charge here – as opposed to the right where the commander in chief launches the decisive cavalry charge. Yet it is only the left that requires a commander of the infantry as well as an overall commander, not the right? My view is that the premier infantry corps of the army 'led up' the infantry line and so too did its commander.

Whilst we are told on occasion that Craterus commanded the infantry of the left ( Issus and Gaugamela for example) under the overall command of an aged Parmenion, there is no such corresponding infantry commander of the right - according to Arrian [III.11] Nicanor commands only the Hypaspists, in marked contrast to the left, where we are specifically told Craterus commanded the infantry of the left as well as his own Taxis.Same at Issus [II.8]
Once again, your view is not based on the evidence, such as it is. Whilst from a drill perspective the Agema and Hypaspists were the 'right marker' for the phalanx and it's advance, there is no command, according to Arrian, of the right wing infantry as a whole - nor is there a need for such, strictly speaking. Each succeeding unit simply conforms to the one to it's right. Perhaps the appointment of an infantry commander for the left wing, effectively a second-in-command, has something to do with Parmenions' age ? ( around 67 at the time)

At the time Alexander had no idea that the only other ‘major’ battle would be Hydaspes. I do not think he will have removed the commander of the premier infantry unit of the right.

Since, according to our sources there was no overall commander of the Hypaspists after Nicanor, there was no-one for Alexander to 'remove' .

Again, I would not be so certain if I were you !! The term ‘hipparchias’/commander of cavalry dates back to Xenophon ( Cavalry Commander III.13 for example ) and also pseudo-Xenophon ‘Constitution of Athens’ to have a generic meaning of “a cavalry command” thus pre-dating Alexander.[ c.f. the word ‘taxis’]. Thus at I.24.3 the word may be being used correctly in its generic sense so that Parmenion was given “a force consisting of a cavalry command of the Companions, the Thessalian cavalry.... “

Much later, when the ‘iles’ were combined, they may have been originally called a ‘tetrarchy’ ( i.e. 4 ‘lochoi') commanded by a ‘Hipparch’ ( Arrian speaks of the other cavalry being organised into ‘tetrarchies’ at III.18.5 ), and later [after the crossing of the Oxus III.29.7] uses the word ‘hipparchy’/cavalry command in its new specific, or technical, sense of ‘cavalry command’ consisting of two iles/squadrons to describe this unit.The units would appear to be given their new title of "a cavalry command" at this time.

Thus there need not be, and probably isn’t, an anachronism here!

You wish to relate much to classical Greek terminology – “Xenophontic” terminology. You problem is that we are dealing with a Macedonian army, not Greek and, even more pertinently, Macedonian sources - not Xenophon (the Athenian Spartiate). The terms used here in Arrian’s sources are used by Macedonians hence ‘chiliarch’ and ‘hipparchy’ refer to a Macedonian nomenclature; not classical Greek. As much as you would love to see Arrian’s use of ἱππαρχίαν as “a cavalry command” throughout, this is simply desperate special pleading. This is clearly a Macedonian term for a unit of the Companion cavalry. Arrian uses exactly the same word at 1.24.3 as he does throughout the rest of his work and it is clearly used anachronistically.

Oh dear ! "desperate special pleading"? Pot calling kettle ,hhh..mm ?

My comments merely demonstrated ( with evidence)that the words 'hipparch' meaning 'cavalry commander' and 'hipparchy' meaning a cavalry command/unit were in use prior to Alexander's day, and accordingly it's use in the generic sense by Arrian need not be an anachronism.
What is 'special pleading' is the idea that the term was somehow only 'invented' after Gaugemala, or that somehow it was specifically 'Macedonian'. But the Macedonians did not invent the words at all ! As we have seen, the name and it's meaning existed long before Alexander's day. In fact, ALL the terminology used of Macedonian organisation is Greek. 'Hipparchy' is simply not a 'Macedonian' term in origin at all - it is a standard Greek term applied to a Macedonian unit, when it acquires a specific meaning in context - like taxis, phalagga, lochoi, agema, hypaspist etc . Since the word, like the others, pre-existed it's usage of Companion cavalry units, then pretty obviously it need not be anachronistic.... ( and similarly with 'chiliarchos' - see ante in previous posts )

I must say that it is surprising that rather than modify your 'view' in the light of newly presented evidence, you prefer to keep to the fossilised version, and 'explain away' the evidence in an extremely unconvincing form of 'special pleading'......

It was you who wrote:

Unless one can conclusively prove error it is far better to accept the text as given.

.....and here, as with Addaios the 'chiliarchos', there is good evidence that the terminology is NOT anachronistic at all, but the terms were in use much earlier.....so no "conclusive proof" of anachronism, rather conclusive proof that the words are NOT anachronistic.

The reason that Xenophon is referred to is that he is the only prior 'technical military' writer to come down to us, hence it is foolish to imply that the word is somehow "Xenophontic".

Later following the cavalry Companion re-organisation at Susa/Sittakene, the newly organised units are divided into generic 'lochoi'/ companies, [ Arrian III.16.11] of which 4 make up ( probably) a 'tetrarchy', [III.18.5 - used of other cavalry but likely to apply to the Companions too] and shortly afterward we hear their new designation of 'Hipparchy'/cavalry command/unit, following the crossing of the Oxus [III.29.7] For a time the 'Ile Basilikoi'/Royal squadron continued to exist [e.g. III.19.6] but eventually is evidently renamed 'Agema' [ e.g. IV.24.2] - perhaps, possibly following an increase in strength from 300 odd to the 512 of a 'Hipparchy'.

[Paralus]

The argument that the infantry reforms of Sittakene relate to the hypaspists corps rest, in the greater part, upon the fact that chiliarchies are created. On your own logic, if "the implication is all, including the phalanx”, the Macedonian phalanx is reduced to four units commanded by eight chiliarchs (not including hypaspists). There is no attestation of phalangite chiliarchs in Alexander’s army.

This simply isn't so. Chiliarchies are indeed created [Curtius V.3] "the first time that the forces were divided into that number." ( note: forces, not Hypaspists ).

(sigh) You’ll note the following: The argument that the infantry reforms of Sittakene relate to the hypaspists corps…. I’m afraid that this is very much so. Scholars who argue that this particular reform applies to the hypaspists base this largely on the fact that only attested infantry brigaded in chiliarchies and led by chiliarchs belong to the regularly so-attested hypaspists.

Moreover 8 chiliarchs are appointed at this time, and perhaps others on other occasions, and since there are reckoned no more than 4 chiliarchies of Hypaspists then some, if not all, of these are appointed to the phalanx. Previously, each 'Taxis' of the phalanx had been divided into sub-units 4 lochoi of 512 men ( yes, I know some reckon three, but that discussion must await the 'numbers' thread), but from this point on would consist of 2 chiliarchies of 1,024 men for a nominal total of 2,048 in a phalanx 'Taxis'.

Yes, the numbers can indeed wait for that thread; far too much going on here.

“Some” of these are appointed to the phalanx brigades? I’m afraid that makes little sense – as if those “left-over” from the hypaspists were given to some phalanx brigades. Even should we accord all of these to the phalanx brigades there remains only four such brigades split into chiliarchies whilst the others remain under the pre-existing system. There is general concordance that the phalanx brigades numbered seven after this great infusion of troops. That would mean another not so organised. That makes very little sense.

You place far too much faith in the accuracy of Curtius’ report. Whilst he is, as Tarn opined, very often a surprising mine of information on Macedonian institutions and such, he is hardly always to be considered utterly accurate. This is the authority who, for example, records that at Gaugamela the argyraspides (hypaspists) were “behind” the phalanx, that four phalanx units were “in reserve” and that Krateros commanded the Peloponnesian cavalry (simply one example). The likelihood that he has muddled this reform in some fashion is high. Not to go to numbers but, if the phalanx units were from the start 2,000 strong, there is no reason at all for Alexander not appointing two chiliarchs per ‘battalion’. There is, though, very little reason to do only part of the job. Alexander might just as well have reorganised only two thirds of his Companion cavalry

It is also hardly to be expected that these chiliarchs were sorted via a “contest” of bravery at Sittakene. The promotions were based on merit and that merit adjudged by the king for outstanding service in the field and acclaimed by the gathered soldiery. Arrian says as much (as does Curtius) for the cavalry (chosen on merit) and there is little reason to suspect anything different for that part of the Macedonian infantry so reorganised.

The reason there is no mention of phalangite chiliarchs is simple. Whilst the largest individual unit of Hypaspists was henceforth a chiliarchy commanded by a chiliarch, in the phalanx it was only a sub-unit, and the largest individual unit remained the Taxis, commanded by Taxiarchs such as Coenus and Craterus....

The far simpler and far more likely reason is that there were no chiliarchs of the regular phalanx units. There is absolutely no attestation of a chiliarch of the Macedonian phalanx infantry in any of the Alexander sources anywhere (outside of the very regularly attested hypaspist chiliarchies) - none. Utilising the logic of our own argument re Neoptolemos and the hypaspist command, I can only conclude that the absolute lack of any attestation – in any of the Alexander sources – of such a regular phalangite chiliarch is “reasonably strong evidence for there being no” chiliarchs of the regular Macedonian phalanx battalions of Alexander’s army. That such might have existed in the armies of later times is another matter entirely and the writings of later tactical theoreticians do not counter the complete and utter lack of any mention of such in army well predating their musings.

I don't understand why you think the Macedonian sarissaphoroi phalanx is 'reduced' to just four units ? The phalanx Taxeis are now made up of two 'chiliarchie's instead of the previous 4 'lochoi', in all probability.

An off-handed remark relating to the above. Eight chiliarchs equals two per your ‘taxis’ and so we now have only four phalanx ‘taxeis’. Unless of course Alexander decided he could only find enough men of ability to reorganise four of his six (or seven) taxies and the rest simply had to wait.

There must have been chilarchies in the phalanx on the strength of Curtius' evidence.The fact that Curtius refers to at least 8 means that the rank and organisation was not just restricted to the Hypaspists - indeed it would be perverse to suggest this, based on the evidence we have.

No, not “at least”: eight. He names eight only and the eighth is listed as he who finished “last” (ultimum). There were only eight and no more. That is, I’m afraid, Curtius’ evidence and hence the scholarly opining on the passage attempting to reconcile it including the fact that what he is listing is pentokosiarchs rather than chiliarchs (and, so, four hypaspist chiliarchies).

Well, I am glad we agree about the approximate timing of Nicanor's death, and the fact that he held his position until his death, at which time he may or may not have commanded four chiliarchies - which doesn't alter the fact that Arrian does not mention any successor, either at this point or later…

He commanded a corps of hypaspists which had been expanded at Sittakene as I’m certain you’ve suggested was the case (I’m not about to back over the two or three threads). Arrian may indeed not mention any successor at this point or later but nor does he ever mention a phalngite chiliarch either…

Incidently, it is quite wrong to suggest that only the infantry were re-organised at Susa/Sittakene, for Arrian [III.16.11] says that from then on, each 'Ile'/squadron was formed of two 'lochoi'/companies where previously there had been none.

Well I would suggest it is quite wrong to claim I ever suggested so. What I wrote was: “what did happen at Sittakene is the reorganisation of a section of the Macedonian infantry – not the entire army (the splitting of the Companion cavalry comes later as does the addition of Asian cavalry for example)…” Now, the latter information about the cavalry is to illustrate that further reforms did follow Sittakene not any supposed ignorance of Curtius’ passage (or Arrian for that matter) and the former is simply one of the reforms. As I wrote earlier:

Conversely, we are told that Alexander reorganised the Companion cavalry organisation just as he did, it is suggested, the hypaspists.

Clearly in reference to Sittakene.

On the matter of anachronism I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree. It is clear that the Macedonians used generic Greek words in a ‘technical’ sense. Agema and Somatophylax ae but two examples. No one – including myself – ever suggested that hipparchy was “invented” after Gaugamela – that is a red herring. At some stage, after the cavalry reorganisation, the basic tactical unit of the Companion cavalry became the hipparchy and was constantly referred to as such (funnily enough it reverts to ile in the decades following Alexander’s death). It was never referred to as such prior to this and Arrian constantly refers to ‘troops’ (ilai) – except for the one single anachronistic instance I noted. This almost certainly came from his source which Arrian has repeated. I would (and have) argued for the same in Arrian at Thebes. If Arrian was, himself, using this in a generic ‘Greek’ fashion it is more than surprising that he does not do so more often: he certainly does so with somotophylax for example. Conversely, he never, anywhere, refers to Parmenion or other commanders assigned Greek and Greek mercenary troops leading chiliarchies of such troops (aside from your single Halicarnassus assertion).

Again, for the Macedonians, these words denoted specific unit names and were used as their military nomenclature. The Macedonians are not complaining of a Persian “lead lochos” when they complain of a Persian infantry agema. They are complaining of the king appointing a Persian agema just as they complain of there being a Persian cavalry guard (agema).

We both agree that “royal hypaspists” refers to the chiliarchies of the ‘regular’ hypaspists. That should give you over to furious thinking…

[agesilaos]

Mhhh, I have to agree with Paralus on the matter of nomenclature; Arrian follows his Macedonian sources in these matters and these did not refer back to Xenophon or Thucydides and co, Ptolemy seems generally to have eschewed the technical terms Aristoboulos and Hieronymos used, just calling the various commands 'taxeis'; he had no need to explain further, he was writing for a Macedonian, albeit ex-patriot, audience who knew that x was a phalanx commander and y an officer of the hypaspists.

Like it or not Plutarch calling Neoptolemos archihypaspist IS evidence; Nikanor who definitely held this position is only mentioned in the major battles and at his death, so any successor who survived has but one chance of a mention, at Hydaspes, there Ptolemy enlarges (in my opinion) his ally, nay protege, Seleukos', position as leader of the Hypaspistai Basilikoi to seem that of archihypaspist ignoring a later enemy Neoptolemos.

The eight appointments in Satrapene (MSS readings) can be supported by a three chiliarchy establishment of the hypaspists, as Diodoros' figures would imply, there are three chiliarchs, and five pentekosiarchs, the sixth pentekosiarch being that of the Hypaspistai Basilikoi who as time expired Pages were already ranked according to valour and the Archihypaspist remaining in the Royal gift. At this distribution of the reinforcements the general infantry ars still distributed 'kata ethne' it would be unlikely that local ties would be maintained at the lowest level but abandoned for the mid tier officers.

Were the 'phalanges' 2,000 strong the lack of an officer for 1,000 seems odd, were they as the evidence suggests 1,500 strong then there is no problem; which 2/3rds would this officer command? And would the remaining pentekosiarch rank above or below him? Curtius has gone wrong somewhere and the simplest solution is that he has confused his units, something particularly easy had the appointments been a mixture of chiliarchs and pentekosiarchs; I would hazard that the source had reported that the generality of the hypaspists had not before been divided into pentekosiarchia and then proceeded to name the winning chiliarchs; conversly the error may lie with the ultimate source and Kleitarchos failing to 'do the math'.

On Paralus' point ablout Krateros et al II 18 iv-vi, I think the two columns re-united while Alexander camped; this is another thread's worth though so let's let that one lie for now

(Point of information - two gammas are 'ng' rather than 'gg' when transliterating and double rho 'rrh', I think we can all think of an example)

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote:Moreover 8 chiliarchs are appointed at this time, and perhaps others on other occasions, and since there are reckoned no more than 4 chiliarchies of Hypaspists then some, if not all, of these are appointed to the phalanx. Previously, each 'Taxis' of the phalanx had been divided into sub-units 4 lochoi of 512 men ( yes, I know some reckon three, but that discussion must await the 'numbers' thread), but from this point on would consist of 2 chiliarchies of 1,024 men for a nominal total of 2,048 in a phalanx 'Taxis'.

Yes, the numbers can indeed wait for that thread; far too much going on here.

“Some” of these are appointed to the phalanx brigades? I’m afraid that makes little sense – as if those “left-over” from the hypaspists were given to some phalanx brigades. Even should we accord all of these to the phalanx brigades there remains only four such brigades split into chiliarchies whilst the others remain under the pre-existing system. There is general concordance that the phalanx brigades numbered seven after this great infusion of troops. That would mean another not so organised. That makes very little sense.

Neither does 8 chiliarchs for 4 chiliarchies of Hypaspists. Furthermore your suppositions are based on this being the only occasion chiliarchs were appointed. Perhaps this occasion merits notice because of its ‘en masse’ nature, and subsequent appointments of a chiliarch here or there, especially to a sub-unit of a phalanx ‘taxis’, would not be so noted. We know that other chiliarchs existed – Antiochus, Nearchus and Seleucus just to name 3 Hypaspist chiliarchs. That makes a total of at least 11....12 if you include Hephaestion, who is a ‘chiliarch’ of companion cavalry ( his command of two ‘hipparchies’ [ 512 men] is later termed a ‘chiliarchy’[1024 men]. )...and that is most unlikely to be a full list of the army’s chiliarchs. Way too many for just four chiliarchies of Hypaspists, so other parts of the “the forces” just as Curtius says, were organised into ‘thousands’. The term’s use of Companion cavalry alone demonstrates it was not unique to Hypaspists.
What’s more, we know from the Hellenistic manuals that a ‘taxis’ of the phalanx was made up of 2 chiliarchies. ( yes I know, you have claimed that this does not go back to Alexander, though there is no reason to think this, ( other than it is an inconvenient piece of evidence from your point of view) and Curtius makes it apparent that “the forces” [ not just the Hypaspists] were organised into chiliarchies at this time.)

You place far too much faith in the accuracy of Curtius’ report. ......

Since it fits with other information, there is no real reason not to. It would be just as true to say you dismiss his evidence too easily. The ‘eight’ chiliarchs appointed at Sittakene are named in order of merit as Attarhias, Antigenes, Philotas of Augaea, Amyntas, Antigonus, Lyncestes Amyntas, Theodotus and Hellanicus [Curtius V.2.5 ] to which we can add Antiochus, Nearchus and Seleucus and finally Hephaistion as named chiliarchs in our sources. Hephaistion is ‘commander of 1,000men’ of the Companion cavalry [VII.14.10], the preceding three ‘commanders of 1,000 men’ of the Hypaspists. Of the eight named at Sittakene, only the first two can be positively associated with the Hypaspists – Attarhias is prominent in arresting Philotas son of Parmenion [Curtius VI.8.19] at the head of 300 Hypaspists. Antigenes rose to prominence, commanding the ‘Silver shields/Hypapsists’ after Alexander’s death. ( Two new appointees fits the expansion of the Hypaspists from two to four chiliarchies at this time).
Philotas of Augaea is possibly the same Philotas given the satrapy of Cilicia by Perdiccas after Alexander’s death[Curtius X.10.2], and who appears as a Taxiarch at [Arrian III.18 ]; again as Taxiarch under Ptolemy during the capture of Bessus [III.29]; and finally in India at [IV.24]. If, as seems likely, this is the case, then we have Philotas appointed ‘chiliarch’ in the phalanx, rising one rank to ‘taxiarch’ and finally, perhaps, obtaining a satrapy. We hear nothing further of the other Sittakene ‘chiliarchs’, save that Hellanicus is likely to be the same man who served bravely at Halicarnassus [Arrian I.21.5]. So where did these other six ‘chiliarchs’ serve ? Some, at least 4 as a minimum, but more likely all, have to have served in the phalanx by default. The example of Philotas is illuminating since, if he is the same man, is not referred to in his capacity as 'chiliarch', but only when promoted to 'taxiarch' – a full unit-commander.

The far simpler and far more likely reason is that there were no chiliarchs of the regular phalanx units. There is absolutely no attestation of a chiliarch of the Macedonian phalanx infantry in any of the Alexander sources anywhere (outside of the very regularly attested hypaspist chiliarchies) - none. Utilising the logic of our own argument re Neoptolemos and the hypaspist command, I can only conclude that the absolute lack of any attestation – in any of the Alexander sources – of such a regular phalangite chiliarch is “reasonably strong evidence for there being no” chiliarchs of the regular Macedonian phalanx battalions of Alexander’s army. That such might have existed in the armies of later times is another matter entirely and the writings of later tactical theoreticians do not counter the complete and utter lack of any mention of such in army well predating their musings.

This is taking a sledgehammer of unsupported opinion, based on absence of evidence, to crack a kernel of actual evidence. ( note the forceful language! )
We have seen that it is, logically enough, the commanders of major tactical units who are mentioned, as I have explained previously. Thus we hear of Hephaistion as ‘chiliarch’ of Companions, but not who commanded the two subordinate ‘hipparchies’ that made up this unit, of named ‘chiliarchs’ of Hypaspists, but not their subordinate ‘lochagoi/pentekosiarchs’, and named ‘Taxiarchs’, but not their subordinate ‘chiliarchs’, or earlier, ‘lochagoi’.

Over the years those who dismiss the Hellenistic manuals do so at their peril, for several times the supposed 'musings of theoretical philosophers' have turned out to be good evidence for the armies of Alexander and his Successors. If a detail can be definitely shown to be post-Alexander, then that matter is settled, but we should accept what the manuals say otherwise as being reliable, especially in this case when Curtius tells us that it was Alexander who introduced 'chiliarchies'/ thousands into Macedonian nomenclature, and the manuals show that this was indeed a sub-unit of the 'Taxis'.

No, not “at least”: eight. He names eight only and the eighth is listed as he who finished “last” (ultimum). There were only eight and no more. That is, I’m afraid, Curtius’ evidence and hence the scholarly opining on the passage attempting to reconcile it including the fact that what he is listing is pentokosiarchs rather than chiliarchs (and, so, four hypaspist chiliarchies).

Eight on this single occasion, but quite obviously others elsewhere on other occasions (see above), hence ‘at least’. Scholarly attempts at ‘special pleading,’ such as Curtius “must have” meant pentekosiarchs/ commander of 500 should be dismissed as unlikely in the extreme, indeed as totally implausible.

On the matter of anachronism I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree. It is clear that the Macedonians used generic Greek words in a ‘technical’ sense. Agema and Somatophylax ae but two examples. No one – including myself – ever suggested that hipparchy was “invented” after Gaugamela – that is a red herring.

Not so, for ‘hipparchy’ to be an anachronism before Gaugemala ( which it clearly was not), then the term as a name of a ‘cavalry command’ must have not been in existence, hence ‘invented’ and used first by the Macedonians. This I have demonstrated is not true – the term was a general one for a ‘cavalry command’ going back well before Alexander’s time, hence not an anachronism at all. What is true is that the Macedonians, having organised their cavalry into ‘Iles/squadrons’ previously, now divided these into 2 ‘lochoi/companies’ and combined two squadrons into a larger unit, at first probably called a ‘tetrarchy/unit of four’ ( from its 4 ‘lochoi’) , but later given the less clumsy title ‘Hipparchy’ – a ‘cavalry command/unit’.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

Mhhh, I have to agree with Paralus on the matter of nomenclature; Arrian follows his Macedonian sources in these matters and these did not refer back to Xenophon or Thucydides and co, Ptolemy seems generally to have eschewed the technical terms Aristoboulos and Hieronymos used, just calling the various commands 'taxeis'; he had no need to explain further, he was writing for a Macedonian, albeit ex-patriot, audience who knew that x was a phalanx commander and y an officer of the hypaspists.

Except that the nomenclature is not particularly Macedonian at all.....They simply use the same unit nomenclature as was used in Greece going back to Xenophon and before....

Like it or not Plutarch calling Neoptolemos archihypaspist IS evidence; Nikanor who definitely held this position is only mentioned in the major battles and at his death, so any successor who survived has but one chance of a mention, at Hydaspes, there Ptolemy enlarges (in my opinion) his ally, nay protege, Seleukos', position as leader of the Hypaspistai Basilikoi to seem that of archihypaspist ignoring a later enemy Neoptolemos.

Except that the term ‘archihypaspist’ is never used in earlier sources, and so far as our sources go, there was no overall commander of the Hypaspists after Nicanor’s death ( see e.g. the Chiliarch Antiochus given temporary command of the three chilarchies of Hypaspists present – his own, that of Nearchos and another one, while his fellow chiliarch Nearchos takes charge of the Agrianes and all the light troops). No mention of any overall commander of Hypaspists.

Certainly, at face value, Plutarch is evidence for the fact that Neoptolemus held a rank called 'archhypaspist' after Alexander's death, but neither this rank, nor Neoptolemus holding it, are attested in ANY source ( including Plutarch) prior to Alexander's death.

The eight appointments in Satrapene (MSS readings) can be supported by a three chiliarchy establishment of the hypaspists, as Diodoros' figures would imply, there are three chiliarchs, and five pentekosiarchs, the sixth pentekosiarch being that of the Hypaspistai Basilikoi who as time expired Pages were already ranked according to valour and the Archihypaspist remaining in the Royal gift. At this distribution of the reinforcements the general infantry ars still distributed 'kata ethne' it would be unlikely that local ties would be maintained at the lowest level but abandoned for the mid tier officers.

This is jamming a square peg into a round hole, and makes unlikely assumptions, such as that there was such a thing as an ‘archihypaspist’ at this time. I take it you mean Curtius rather than Diodorus? If not please supply a reference. We are talking here of the Hypaspists who were NOT raised on a ‘kata ethne’/tribal/territorial basis. There are better explanations than this, which doesn’t even add up, nor explain why Curtius says ‘chiliarchs’ when according to this rather ridiculous theory he meant 3 chiliarchs ( itself based on the incorrect assumption, so I shall show ultimately in the ‘numbers’ thread, that there were 3 chiliarchies of Hypaspists at this time, when in fact the evidence favours two ) and an entirely different 5 'pentekosiarch's – but whoops, we need a sixth !

This hypothesis, quite literally, does not add up. Nor is it supported by evidence.

Were the 'phalanges' 2,000 strong the lack of an officer for 1,000 seems odd, were they as the evidence suggests 1,500 strong then there is no problem; which 2/3rds would this officer command? And would the remaining pentekosiarch rank above or below him? Curtius has gone wrong somewhere and the simplest solution is that he has confused his units, something particularly easy had the appointments been a mixture of chiliarchs and pentekosiarchs; I would hazard that the source had reported that the generality of the hypaspists had not before been divided into pentekosiarchia and then proceeded to name the winning chiliarchs; conversly the error may lie with the ultimate source and Kleitarchos failing to 'do the math'.

Again, none of this is what the evidence suggests, and the simplest solution is that Curtius was correct, rather than the over-complicated theorems of modern commentators trying to make this fit a structure which itself rests on a single false ( on the weight of evidence) assumption that the ‘Taxeis’ of the phalanx were 1,500 strong.

That units of 500 or so ( called lochoi) existed prior to this re-organisation cannot be disputed.

I see we are going round in circles yet again....though the digressions on unit nomenclature - chiliarchies and hipparchies - and their introduction and origin has been of interest.

There doesn't really seem to be any more to be said. I do not think, on balance of evidence, that Neoptolemus had command of the Hypaspist Corps under Alexander, though Paralus apparently does, we both agree the term 'archihypaspist' was not used in Alexander's time. Agesilaos thinks the opposite, that Neoptolemus served under Alexander as 'archihypaspist' despite a total lack of any persuasive evidence other than Plutarch's slightly ambiguous sentence. For Agesilaos' view to be correct, then Neoptolemus truly must be "the invisible Archihypaspist".

Without further evidence, the reader must make up their own mind

[Paralus]

Far too much going here to address all at once. Perhaps a few at a time...

You place far too much faith in the accuracy of Curtius’ report. ......

Since it fits with other information, there is no real reason not to. It would be just as true to say you dismiss his evidence too easily.

The evidence is not "dismissed"; it is, rather, not taken unquestioned. Curtius' evidence is eight chiliarchs and eight chiliarchs only. There is no other reference in any source – including Curtius – of any further reorganisation of infantry units into chiliarchies. If Curtius has this absolutely correct and we take him literally, as you do, then Alexander has only reorganised, at most, two (or three by your count) of his regular infantry battalions. There is no logic to this outside of the fact that Alexander could not find more men “of valour” to fill these spots.

The ‘eight’ chiliarchs appointed at Sittakene are named in order of merit as Attarhias, Antigenes, Philotas of Augaea, Amyntas, Antigonus, Lyncestes Amyntas, Theodotus and Hellanicus [Curtius V.2.5 ] to which we can add Antiochus, Nearchus and Seleucus and finally Hephaistion as named chiliarchs in our sources. Hephaistion is ‘commander of 1,000men’ of the Companion cavalry [VII.14.10], the preceding three ‘commanders of 1,000 men’ of the Hypaspists. Of the eight named at Sittakene, only the first two can be positively associated with the Hypaspists – Attarhias is prominent in arresting Philotas son of Parmenion [Curtius VI.8.19] at the head of 300 Hypaspists. Antigenes rose to prominence, commanding the ‘Silver shields/Hypapsists’ after Alexander’s death. ( Two new appointees fits the expansion of the Hypaspists from two to four chiliarchies at this time).

I will leave Hephaestion for the moment (in any case he has no bearing on the infantry).

Firstly, Seleucus is nowhere described as a ‘chiliarch’ under Alexander to my knowledge and so I will put him to one side as well. That leaves Antiokhos and Nearkhos that we can add. Both of these are unequivocally described as hypaspist chiliarchs. We again have no single attested regular Macedonian infantry ‘battalion’ chiliarch to add. We can either say that Curtius means the above listed eight are not unit specific (that is, not hypaspists only) and he refers to all the Macedonian heavy infantry or that he is referring to a reorganisation of one unit (the hypaspists). That every single clearly and unambiguously attested infantry chiliarch (aside from the archers)is a hypaspist makes the latter the more likely.

Philotas of Augaea is possibly the same Philotas given the satrapy of Cilicia by Perdiccas after Alexander’s death[Curtius X.10.2], and who appears as a Taxiarch at [Arrian III.18 ]; again as Taxiarch under Ptolemy during the capture of Bessus [III.29]; and finally in India at [IV.24]. If, as seems likely, this is the case, then we have Philotas appointed ‘chiliarch’ in the phalanx, rising one rank to ‘taxiarch’ and finally, perhaps, obtaining a satrapy. We hear nothing further of the other Sittakene ‘chiliarchs’, save that Hellanicus is likely to be the same man who served bravely at Halicarnassus [Arrian I.21.5]. So where did these other six ‘chiliarchs’ serve ? Some, at least 4 as a minimum, but more likely all, have to have served in the phalanx by default. The example of Philotas is illuminating since, if he is the same man, is not referred to in his capacity as 'chiliarch', but only when promoted to 'taxiarch' – a full unit-commander.

That is something of a bungee cord stretch. To begin with, Philotas of Augaea is made chiliarch in winter 331/30 in Susiane. Immediately afterwards Alexander sets off with the army to deal with the Ouxioi. This done he marches on the Persian Gates – in the very same winter (as Curtius’ account makes plain). He has with him all the Macedonian infantry which is then divided into three detachments: one at the pass, one with himself and the other to bridge the Pasitigris. As always, Arrian does not fill in all the unit details. The units of Krateros and Meleaghros are left at the pass. The unit of Perdikkas goes with Alexander. Sent to the Pasitigris, according to Arrian, is the “rest of the army” led by Amyntas, Philotas and Koinos. Curtius has Philotas, Koinos, Amyntas and Polyperchon in this detachment and adds that “their force included horsemen among the infantry” (5.4.20). Now, we know that Polyperchon was promoted to Ptolemy son of Seleukos’ battalion after Issos and so Curtius is almost certainly correct in this detail (for all the Macedonian infantry is accounted for). This detachment, by process of elimination, must have some half of the Companion cavalry and the prodromoi with them (With Alexander are the ile basilike and a ‘tetrachy’; nearly 500 are left with Krateros). Philotas is thus, far more likely, the cavalry commander son of Parmenion and not a taxiarch. Even were he a taxiarch, promoted from chiliarch, that is a meteoric rise. He’d only been appointed such in this same winter.

On 3.29.7 Arrian describes a ‘flying column’ meant to move at quick speed. This they did covering a ten day march in four. These are near certainly light infantry (the only ‘heavies’ being a chiliarchy of hypaspists). 4.24.10 is a force which is to operate on broken ground. The infantry assault was to be made by Alexander on the plain (as it was). These too are light armed troops outside of the third of the hypaspists (two chiliarchies of archers, all the Agrianians and half the cavalry).

[agesilaos]

Neither does 8 chiliarchs for 4 chiliarchies of Hypaspists. Furthermore your suppositions are based on this being the only occasion chiliarchs were appointed. Perhaps this occasion merits notice because of its ‘en masse’ nature, and subsequent appointments of a chiliarch here or there, especially to a sub-unit of a phalanx ‘taxis’, would not be so noted. We know that other chiliarchs existed – Antiochus, Nearchus and Seleucus just to name 3 Hypaspist chiliarchs. That makes a total of at least 11....12 if you include Hephaestion, who is a ‘chiliarch’ of companion cavalry ( his command of two ‘hipparchies’ [ 512 men] is later termed a ‘chiliarchy’[1024 men]. )...and that is most unlikely to be a full list of the army’s chiliarchs. Way too many for just four chiliarchies of Hypaspists, so other parts of the “the forces” just as Curtius says, were organised into ‘thousands’. The term’s use of Companion cavalry alone demonstrates it was not unique to Hypaspists.
What’s more, we know from the Hellenistic manuals that a ‘taxis’ of the phalanx was made up of 2 chiliarchies. ( yes I know, you have claimed that this does not go back to Alexander, though there is no reason to think this, ( other than it is an inconvenient piece of evidence from your point of view) and Curtius makes it apparent that “the forces” [ not just the Hypaspists] were organised into chiliarchies at this time.)

One wonders where to start with this farrago; it is Xenophon’s contention that chiliarchia first appeared in Satrapene, but Alexander does not appoint a complete set of officers at one time; he appoints four to a doubled Hypaspist corps and four to the ordinary phalanx, what of the other two or three( if one accepts the creation of a seventh unit) phalanges? The proposition is a nonsense.

Hephaistion did not, of course command two hipparchiai of whatever strength, but only one of the new hipparchia which passed to Perdikkas upon Hephaistion’s death, the Chiliarchy he held encompassed the command of the whole of the Companion Cavalry if the Diadoch evidence is anything to go by, and was a resurrection of the Persian Chiliarchate, which involved command of the ‘Kinsmen’ cavalry. The term is unrelated to its use in the Hypaspist corps.

You really should know that the ‘taxis’ of your accurate manuals is a unit of only 128 men without any officers outside the formation (supernumaries) so it was NOT ‘made up of two chiliarchies.’; they call that a merarachia, though say it was formerly a ‘keras’ or wing, which is also the name Askleiodiotos gives to 8192 men, or a telos.

It was Diodoros I meant and the reference is to the numbers crossing the Hellespont; I know you want, nay, need to interpret this differently to fit the manuals but few others do.

Except that the nomenclature is not particularly Macedonian at all.....They simply use the same unit nomenclature as was used in Greece going back to Xenophon and before....

Yes the words ARE Greek but they mean different things in an Alexandrian context in just the same way that the Belgians call their chief warrant officer (one of the sergeant’s mess) adjutant-major, leading to Belgian sergeants being invited into the officer’s mess! Shocking.

That units of 500 or so (called lochoi) existed prior to this re-organisation cannot be disputed.

Well I dispute it and defy you to give the references.

I can only assume the euphoria of the imminent Ashes triumph has de-stabilised things in the Xenophontic cranium.Normal service will be resumed soon, I am sure

[Paralus]

I can only assume the euphoria of the imminent Ashes triumph has de-stabilised things in the Xenophontic cranium.Normal service will be resumed soon, I am sure

Yes, something seems to misfiring.

Hepahaestion's 'chiliarchy' is completely unrelated to events at Sittakene and has nothing whatsoever to do with the reorganisation of the hypaspists (or the “Macedonian infantry”). It also has little to do with numbers.

Hephaestion was one of two officers appointed to a ‘shared’ command of the cavalry after Philotas’ death. The two are described as ἱππάρχας (δύο). The term describes an office or officer just as it does for Euriguios (“cavalry commander of the allies” 3.6.6); Demetrius (“the cavalry commander” 4.27.5 and 6.8.2); Karanos ("the cavalry commander" 4.6.7) and 4.18.2 ("all the cavalry commanders") for example.

As Agesilaos says and I’ve been stressing: the word might be Greek but the usage, as military and official nomenclature, is clearly otherwise.

That makes a total of at least 11....12 if you include Hephaestion, who is a ‘chiliarch’ of companion cavalry ( his command of two ‘hipparchies’ [ 512 men] is later termed a ‘chiliarchy’[1024 men] [...] Hephaistion is ‘commander of 1,000men’ of the Companion cavalry [VII.14.10] [...]Thus we hear of Hephaistion as ‘chiliarch’ of Companions, but not who commanded the two subordinate ‘hipparchies’ that made up this unit...

The logical conclusion from the above is that Hephaestion commanded only 1,000 of the Companion cavalry. Should we accept that as 2,000 odd strong (outside the agema), Hephaestion still only commands half of the Companions as he did when Kleitos was alive. One would have to ask who commanded the other half were it not clear that such was incorrect and, in fact, Hepaestion commanded the entire Companion cavalry.

When the cavalry was divided into ‘hipparchys’ (used to describe a unit, not a ‘cavalry command/er’), likely near to Kleitos’ death, Hephaestion became commander of the ‘First hipparchy’ and was made ‘chiliarch’ in Alexander’s revival of the Persian office. The other hipparchies are those of Krateros, Perdikkas, Demetrios and Koinos (at a quick count). Here the numbers are not relevant, rather, the office is: Hephaestion, as Chiliarch, commands the Macedonian equivalent of the Persian king’s ‘Kinsmen’. At no stage does Arrian describe Hephaestion (or anyone else) as leading a chiliarchy (1,000) of Companion cavalry. Hephaestion and other commanders are only ever described as leading hipparchies. The illustrative example is Hydaspes where Alexander takes three hipparchies of Companions. These are those of Demetrius, Perdikkas and Hephaestion. Alexander does not take Hephaestion’s ‘chiliarchy’ and there is little reason to think either Perdikkas’ or Demetrios’ hipparchies are a part of Hephaestion’s supposed ‘chiliarchy’ of 1,000 (else why name them separately?). Indeed we hear of Companion cavalry being detached to commanders for particular missions or arrayed and these are always hipparchies: one – Krateros’ own hipparchy – 5.11.3, 5.22.6; two - 6.6.4, 6.7.3 (δύο ἱππαρχίας); three - 3.29.7, 4.4.7, 5.12.2; four - 4.4.1. Nowhere is a ‘chiliarchy’ of Comapnaions mentioned. The tactical unit was the hipparchy and if two such made a ‘chiliarchy’ why does Arrian never refer to such preferring δύο ἱππαρχίας or naming two hipparchies? The chiliarch of the Companion cavalry was the commander of the first hipparchy and Chiliarch of the cavalry. This did not mean commander of 1,000; it was a title for the position in the army denoting the command of the entire Companion cavalry and second officer in the army after the king (regardless of any argued ‘court’ duties).

At 7.14.10 Arrian, after Hephaestion’s death, claims that no one else was appointed to this position, that Alexander made no one χιλίαρχον ἐπὶ τῇ ἵππῳ τῇ ἑταιρικῇ or “chiliarch of the Companion Cavalry”. Contra Arrian (or, rather, Ptolemy), we in fact are informed that Perdikkas was made chiliarch after Hephaestion’s death. Diodorus says that Seleukos was made ἱππαρχίαν τῶν ἑταίρων (“commander of the Companions”) and goes to describe this as the exact same office that Hephaestion and Perdikkas had held beforehand; that is, the Chiliarchy. Appian(Syr. 57) and Plutarch (Eum. 1.2) confirm this in near exactly the same words. Seleukos, at Babylon, is not made “commander of 1,000”; he is made hipparchos of the Comapnions (= chiliarch of the Companions or Chiliarch).

Plutarch’s notice confirms both the tactical division of the Companion cavalry and its hierarchical nature. He states that Eumenes received the ἱππαρχίαν of Perdikkas when that commander was promoted to Hephaestion’s command. Thus Eumenes was promoted to command of Perdikkas’ hipparchy when Perdikkas received command of Hephaestion's hipparchy and command of the entire Companion cavary (= Chiliarch of the Companion cavalry). This was exactly the command and office that Seleukos received in Babylon as the sources attest.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

Far too much going here to address all at once. Perhaps a few at a time...

Xenophon wrote:

You place far too much faith in the accuracy of Curtius’ report. ......

Since it fits with other information, there is no real reason not to. It would be just as true to say you dismiss his evidence too easily.

The evidence is not "dismissed"; it is, rather, not taken unquestioned. Curtius' evidence is eight chiliarchs and eight chiliarchs only. There is no other reference in any source – including Curtius – of any further reorganisation of infantry units into chiliarchies. If Curtius has this absolutely correct and we take him literally, as you do, then Alexander has only reorganised, at most, two (or three by your count) of his regular infantry battalions. There is no logic to this outside of the fact that Alexander could not find more men “of valour” to fill these spots.

This is completely illogical. If 8 chiliarchs only are appointed on this occasion, that does not mean that Alexander could not have re-organised his whole phalanx into chiliarchies – there were existing commanders to accommodate into the new structure. Even Stalin, when he conducted his purge of the Red Army officer corps in 1938, did not eliminate the majority of his officers, and this was no Stalin-like purge, merely an expansion of the army as a whole. There were plenty of “men of valour” already serving as officers. The “eight” merely represent new appointments, and clearly not all to the Hypaspists.

Xenophon wrote:The ‘eight’ chiliarchs appointed at Sittakene are named in order of merit as Attarhias, Antigenes, Philotas of Augaea, Amyntas, Antigonus, Lyncestes Amyntas, Theodotus and Hellanicus [Curtius V.2.5 ] to which we can add Antiochus, Nearchus and Seleucus and finally Hephaistion as named chiliarchs in our sources. Hephaistion is ‘commander of 1,000men’ of the Companion cavalry [VII.14.10], the preceding three ‘commanders of 1,000 men’ of the Hypaspists. Of the eight named at Sittakene, only the first two can be positively associated with the Hypaspists – Attarhias is prominent in arresting Philotas son of Parmenion [Curtius VI.8.19] at the head of 300 Hypaspists. Antigenes rose to prominence, commanding the ‘Silver shields/Hypapsists’ after Alexander’s death. ( Two new appointees fits the expansion of the Hypaspists from two to four chiliarchies at this time).

I will leave Hephaestion for the moment (in any case he has no bearing on the infantry).

Firstly, Seleucus is nowhere described as a ‘chiliarch’ under Alexander to my knowledge and so I will put him to one side as well. That leaves Antiokhos and Nearkhos that we can add. Both of these are unequivocally described as hypaspist chiliarchs. We again have no single attested regular Macedonian infantry ‘battalion’ chiliarch to add. We can either say that Curtius means the above listed eight are not unit specific (that is, not hypaspists only) and he refers to all the Macedonian heavy infantry or that he is referring to a reorganisation of one unit (the hypaspists). That every single clearly and unambiguously attested infantry chiliarch (aside from the archers)is a hypaspist makes the latter the more likely.

Sorry, but this simply won’t wash in the slightest! You are positing that there were ten or more Hypaspist chiliarchs ? For at most 4 chiliarchies ? Just not plausible!! Nor can you dismiss Seleucus so easily. He commands a unit of Hypaspists, which can be nothing other than a chiliarchy ( there are ‘other’ units of Hypaspists present whom he does not command, so please don’t try and claim he is some sort of ‘archihypapist’, which is where I suspect you are going.)
I have already explained why it is mainly Hypaspist chiliarchs we hear of - because chilarchies are their basic tactical unit - but we also hear of chiliarchies of archers also - care to suggest when they were re-organised, and when their 'chiliarchs' were appointed ?

That ‘chiliarchs’ were appointed on other occasions cannot be doubted – Antiochus and Nearchus weren’t appointed at Susa/Sittakene for a start, nor in all probability the archers.

Xenophon wrote:Philotas of Augaea is possibly the same Philotas given the satrapy of Cilicia by Perdiccas after Alexander’s death[Curtius X.10.2], and who appears as a Taxiarch at [Arrian III.18 ]; again as Taxiarch under Ptolemy during the capture of Bessus [III.29]; and finally in India at [IV.24]. If, as seems likely, this is the case, then we have Philotas appointed ‘chiliarch’ in the phalanx, rising one rank to ‘taxiarch’ and finally, perhaps, obtaining a satrapy. We hear nothing further of the other Sittakene ‘chiliarchs’, save that Hellanicus is likely to be the same man who served bravely at Halicarnassus [Arrian I.21.5]. So where did these other six ‘chiliarchs’ serve ? Some, at least 4 as a minimum, but more likely all, have to have served in the phalanx by default. The example of Philotas is illuminating since, if he is the same man, is not referred to in his capacity as 'chiliarch', but only when promoted to 'taxiarch' – a full unit-commander.

That is something of a bungee cord stretch. To begin with, Philotas of Augaea is made chiliarch in winter 331/30 in Susiane. Immediately afterwards Alexander sets off with the army to deal with the Ouxioi. This done he marches on the Persian Gates – in the very same winter (as Curtius’ account makes plain). He has with him all the Macedonian infantry which is then divided into three detachments: one at the pass, one with himself and the other to bridge the Pasitigris. As always, Arrian does not fill in all the unit details. The units of Krateros and Meleaghros are left at the pass. The unit of Perdikkas goes with Alexander. Sent to the Pasitigris, according to Arrian, is the “rest of the army” led by Amyntas, Philotas and Koinos. Curtius has Philotas, Koinos, Amyntas and Polyperchon in this detachment and adds that “their force included horsemen among the infantry” (5.4.20). Now, we know that Polyperchon was promoted to Ptolemy son of Seleukos’ battalion after Issos and so Curtius is almost certainly correct in this detail (for all the Macedonian infantry is accounted for). This detachment, by process of elimination, must have some half of the Companion cavalry and the prodromoi with them (With Alexander are the ile basilike and a ‘tetrachy’; nearly 500 are left with Krateros). Philotas is thus, far more likely, the cavalry commander son of Parmenion and not a taxiarch. Even were he a taxiarch, promoted from chiliarch, that is a meteoric rise. He’d only been appointed such in this same winter.

This is something of a red herring. The real point I was making was that, as far as is known, neither Philotas nor any of those ranked below him on the ‘table of merit’ have any known association with the Hypaspists, and differing ideas about which “Philotas” is being referred to are irrelevant – let us save it for a prosopographical thread. I’ll only point out that promotion of just one rank is anything but ‘meteoric’. If anything happened to a ‘Taxiarch’, either a new senior commander would be drafted in, or one of the two ‘Chiliarchs’ would be promoted.

So then, Paralus, let us hear your explanation of who all these surplus ‘chiliarchs’ served with ?

On 3.29.7 Arrian describes a ‘flying column’ meant to move at quick speed. This they did covering a ten day march in four. These are near certainly light infantry (the only ‘heavies’ being a chiliarchy of hypaspists).

If ‘heavy’ Hypaspists could keep up with the flying column, then so could similarly equipped heavy infantry of the phalanx – we hear of such marches elsewhere, sometimes with the heavy infanty being described as ‘kouphatatos’/lightly equipped. That is no justification at all for assuming Philotas 'Taxis' to be light troops.
Here the units are described in ‘descending’ order, heavy to light, as : “ ...and of the infantry, the Taxis of Philotas,a chiliarchy of Hypaspists, all the Agrianes, and half the archers, with orders to make a forced march....”.
Philotas ( whichever one !) is surely Taxiarch of a Phalanx brigade.

4.24.10 is a force which is to operate on broken ground. The infantry assault was to be made by Alexander on the plain (as it was). These too are light armed troops outside of the third of the hypaspists (two chiliarchies of archers, all the Agrianians and half the cavalry).

There is no certainty , or even likelihood, that Philotas’ troops are ‘light armed’ or even a hint that they were. What Arrian says is: “ the second division he put under the lead of Ptolemy, son of Lagus, including the third part of the royal shield-bearing guards [Hypaspists Basilikoi], the brigades of Philip and Philotas, two regiments of horse-archers, the Agrianians, and half of the cavalry.”

The force does not operate on ‘broken ground’, but rather assaults a hill ( if it were on 'broken ground', the cavalry would be in difficulties). Moreover Philotas and Philip’s ‘taxeis’ are associated and clearly both of the phalanx, with the infantry being set out in descending order of lightness once again. Note that all three chiliarchies of Hypaspists are described as basilikoi here – i.e. given their full title.
Assaults of any sort were not a task of light-armed missile troops who fought at a distance, but for the 'heavy', well-protected infantry, let alone assaults uphill !!

To interpret Philotas’ Taxis on these two occasions as ‘light troops’ is very forced, to say the least.

That is not to say that chiliarchs, could not be ‘detached’ to command other troops. For example at Arrian IV.30.6 , the capture of Aornus rock, we have a force of three ‘chiliarchies’ of Hypaspists, together with the Agrianes and other light-armed troops. Two ‘Chiliarchs’, Antiochus and Nearchos are mentioned ( we are not told the name of the third Hypaspist chiliarch, who must be junior to Antiochus and Nearchos.)

There are, tactically speaking, two commands here – over the heavy infantry phalanx, who would fight as one, and the more mobile units of light troops. Antiochus takes command of the heavy troops – including Nearchos’ chiliarchy – and Nearchos has overall command of the various units of light troops

[Paralus]

…there are ‘other’ units of Hypaspists present whom he does not command so please don’t try and claim he is some sort of ‘archihypapist’, which is where I suspect you are going.)

I’m grateful for the advice. Perhaps, before I respond to your rather strident post, you might do me the favour of making clear just what I might or might not argue and where I might or might not “go”. As there are other matters I need to get to, it will save much wasted time on my part tilting at your prescience. Meantime, I would note just the following:

This is something of a red herring. The real point I was making was that, as far as is known, neither Philotas nor any of those ranked below him on the ‘table of merit’ have any known association with the Hypaspists, and differing ideas about which “Philotas” is being referred to are irrelevant – let us save it for a prosopographical thread.

It was your own prosopographical theory to which I responded. I wasn't aware that a response to such a theory would constitute a 'red herring'. Some ground rules would help.

[agesilaos]

Things are getting rather shrill and accusations of illogic are not suitable unless they can be demonstrated; insisting that the piece of evidence that is under discussion is correct and cannot be challenged is of itself a position of Faith not logic. It is touching that Curtius attracts such loyalty but I fancy it will be a rather small congregation!

Perhaps I should summarise the facts
1) Curtius says that the Macedonian army had not been divided into units of 1,000 before 330 and had previously only had units of 500.
2) Arrian names a chiliarch prior to 330, Addaios at Halikarnassos. Pentekosiarchs occur only at VII 29 vi, where they accompany the chiliarchs in waiting outside the hall where Alexander lies dying.
3) The first mention of a chiliarchy in Arrian is III 29 vii, where Ptolemy takes, ‘three hipparchia of Companion Cavalry, all the mounted javelinmen and of the foot, the unit (taxis) of Philotas, one chiliarchy of Hypaspists, all the Agrianes and half the archers with orders to proceed by forced marches to Spitamenes and Dataphernes.’ In order to arrest Bessos. This is after 330.
4) Curtius names eight chiliarchs.
5) Arrian names only Niarchos and Antiochos (IV 30 vi); neither name is on Curtius’ list.
6) Arrian III 16 xi, describes the allocation of foot reinforcements ‘kata ethne’ and the introduction of lochoi into the Companion cavalry two per ile and states that the lochagoi were appointed from ‘ …men distinguished for courage among the Companions.’
7) Curtius reforms are of the infantry (V 2 iii-vii) and take place in a slightly different location, but the new appointees are also chosen for their valour.
The reinforcements amounted to 6,000 Macedonian foot, and 500 horse, 3,500 Thracian foot and 600 horse, 4,000 mercenary Peloponnesian foot and 380 horse, according to Curtius, Diodoros (XVII 65 I ) specifies the Thracian foot as Trallians, makes the Greek cavalry rather less than 1,000 and adds fifty Paides.

In order to accept Curtius’ report as accurate it is necessary to
a) Explain away Arrian’s making Addaios a chiiliarch.
b) Have Alexander institute a new level of command in the phalanx as well as the Hypaspists; since the Hypaspists are attested as being formed in chiliarchia but no one suggests that they were 8,000 strong.
c) Further to b, only part of the phalanx was to have new officers appointed for bravery; there were 9,000 phalangites in six units or 12,000 to which the usual count would add 3,000 hypaspists and the 6,000 reinforcements distributed ‘kata ethne’, which was not the case with the Hypaspists who were chosen from the whole kingdom; so 18,000 or 21,000 Macedonian foot.

The maths do not work, the 6,000 new arrivals might have wanted officers but account for only six chiliarchs, the other two becoming Hypaspist officers leaves at least one Hypaspist chiliarchy with an officer appointed differently. And there lies the rub, Alexander’s distribution of the Macedonian foot ‘kata ethne’ speaks to the traditional methods of recruitment being retained in the phalanx, yet to accommodate Curtius figures one has to suppose that the officers appointed to a fragment of the body no longer had local ties but had their position by merit. This is not a recipe for stability in an army where a units position in the line was determined, not by the commander but by the drawing of lots to diffuse the keen rivalry of the various ethnai. That those chosen for valour will feel more worthy than the standard appointees is introducing a degree of divisiveness no Macedonian king would countenance, let alone one in the middle of Asia.

Nor can you dismiss Seleucus so easily. He commands a unit of Hypaspists, which can be nothing other than a chiliarchy ( there are ‘other’ units of Hypaspists present whom he does not command, so please don’t try and claim he is some sort of ‘archihypapist’, which is where I suspect you are going.)
I have already explained why it is mainly Hypaspist chiliarchs we hear of - because chilarchies are their basic tactical unit - but we also hear of chiliarchies of archers also - care to suggest when they were re-organised, and when their 'chiliarchs' were appointed ?

Seleukos is the commander of the ‘Hypaspistai Basilikoi’ who are enumerated separately from the ‘Agema Basilikoi’ and ‘hoi alloi hypaspistai’ this could just as easily be a pentekosiarchia. Previously you have asserted that ‘Hypaspistai Basilikoi’ was proper title of the corps which would make him ‘some sort of archihypaspist’; is that a petard I see before me?

The archers may well have been organised as chiliarchies ab initio, they appear in multiples of 1,000 in Illyria, for instance. The only reason we hear of Hypaspist chiliarchia and that only three times (III 29, IV 30, and V 23) are that they are sent on independent missions and that the chiliarchia is their basic unit, which is why we do not hear more of them earlier.

When one further considers that no chiliarchia are mentioned , aside from Hypaspist ones and Hephaistion’s, whereas Arrian’s lochoi are, it looks more likely that Curtius’ story is a confusion of a reform and should be rejected along with the reinforcement numbers that accompany it, there is something odd about Pelopponnesian mercenaries marching off to Asia just when Agis is doling out Persian gold on their doorstep, and Thrace was in turmoil too.

[Paralus]

Knowing me, I'd ignore the advice anyway...

This is completely illogical. If 8 chiliarchs only are appointed on this occasion, that does not mean that Alexander could not have re-organised his whole phalanx into chiliarchies – there were existing commanders to accommodate into the new structure […] There were plenty of “men of valour” already serving as officers. The “eight” merely represent new appointments, and clearly not all to the Hypaspists.

Curtius writes (5.2.2-3):

To ensure that his men did not grow idle and lose their spirit, he appointed judges and established prizes of a novel kind for a competition based on military courage – those adjudged to possess the greatest valour would win command of individual units of a thousand men and be called 'chiliarchs'. This was the first time the Macedonian troops had been thus divided numerically, for previously there had been companies of 500, and command of them had not been granted as a prize of valour.

If we, like you, take Curtius literally, Alexander has devised some form of competition of martial courage to attempt to find chiliarchs for the Macedonian infantry troops - including hypaspists. Curtius goes on to say that a “huge crowd of soldiers had gathered to participate in this singular competition, both to testify to each competitor's exploits and to give their verdict on the judges - for it was bound to be known whether the honour attributed to each man was justified or not”. So I think we can safely assume that the rank and file gathered to testify and give their opinion of the judges’ decisions; they did not compete for any of these offices. It follows then that serving officers of the phalanx units (below taxiarch level of course) are the ones who competed in Curtius’ competition for promotion (unless we are to believe that Alexander was about to promote rank and file phalangites to the position of chiliarch). These competing officers can only have come from those officers serving in Asia for the reinforcements have nothing to recommend them to this rank and file promotion party.

Curtius claims that this reform and the competition associated with it “was the first time the Macedonian troops had been thus divided numerically” and so this is the first time that there were divisions of 1,000 for said officers to be promoted; there were no existing commanders of such. Your distinction of “existing officers” and “new appointments” is thus moot for it is the “existing officers” (below the level of taxiarch) who compete for the judges and rank and file’s approval. All appointed to the position of chiliarch are, axiomatically, “new appointments” to a newly created office. Accepting Curtius on faith necessitates the view that only a percentage of the infantry was so organised here and that other units followed at a later and unreported time or that Curtius has decided to only list eight for some particular reason. That reason cannot be because they are “new appointments” as I’ve demonstrated.

Furthermore your suppositions are based on this being the only occasion chiliarchs were appointed. Perhaps this occasion merits notice because of its ‘en masse’ nature, and subsequent appointments of a chiliarch here or there, especially to a sub-unit of a phalanx ‘taxis’, would not be so noted. We know that other chiliarchs existed – Antiochus, Nearchus and Seleucus just to name 3 Hypaspist chiliarchs.

Seleukos has already been dealt with above (and see Agesilaos’ post).

The foregoing, essentially restating what I’ve posted earlier, is not supposition. It is what Curtius is literally writing. It is not logical that Alexander reformed and appointed chiliarchs to another part of the Macedonian foot at a later time on political, administrative and practical command and control grounds (as Agesilaos above). Again, Nearkhos and Antiokhos are hypaspist chiliarchs and their lack of mention in Curtius’ report can be for many reasons. Nothing precludes the expansion of the hypaspists after these reforms as 4.30.5-6 shows. Though it is possible, I’m not persuaded that Antiokhos commands his own and two other chiliarchies including that of Nearkhos.


The fighting in what is modern Afghanistan and Pakistan was hard and hand to hand. The hypaspists are at the forefront of this fighting throughout and will have suffered concomitant casualty rates. The costly bridge collapse at Massaka where the hypaspists suffered what can only have been serious casualties (4.26.5-7) is but one such example. That officers are lost in this fighting is hardly unexpected and nor should the appointment of others to replace them be. Officers such as the two under discussion here can just as easily have been such. They might also be commanders of ἐπίλεκτοι drafted from the phalanx into new hypaspist chiliarchies. Our guesses at the number of hypaspist chiliarchies remain just that. All that we know for certain is that three (of the ‘regular’ hypaspists) remain at campaign’s end.

Sorry, but this simply won’t wash in the slightest! You are positing that there were ten or more Hypaspist chiliarchs ? That ‘chiliarchs’ were appointed on other occasions cannot be doubted – Antiochus and Nearchus weren’t appointed at Susa/Sittakene for a start

It doesn’t have to wash and I fail to see why it must. I have nowhere posited ten or more chiliarchs. I have only stated that if we take Curtius literally – as you do – that there are eight chiliarchs created not ten or more. That is, unless you’ve forgotten, your contention. As I do not agree with such I do not understand why it must be labelled as my position. As to Nearkhos and Antiokhos, see above. Again, these are hypaspist chiliarchs and there are reasons for their later elevation.

…but we also hear of chiliarchies of archers also - care to suggest when they were re-organised, and when their 'chiliarchs' were appointed ?

Answered by Agesilaos above. I would add that Arrian only ever refers to chiliarchies of archers once (4.24.10). We have no attested chiliarch of these two lots of 1,000 only ever a commander of the lot. We hear of several of these including Ombrion (a Cretan suggesting the archers may not be Macedinian) and Tauron. The latter commands the lot (at least 2,000) and seems to have passed into Antigonid service sometime after Alexander’s death. Even when they are detached as single units they are described as “half the archers” and when in toto “all the archers", "the archers" aside from this single notice.

The real point I was making was that, as far as is known, neither Philotas nor any of those ranked below him on the ‘table of merit’ have any known association with the Hypaspists, and differing ideas about which “Philotas” is being referred to are irrelevant…

Well, as I’ve said, it was you who raised his supposed career path in a prosographical musing. It might just as well be observed that he has no known association with the phalanx brigades either. Silence rails against silence.

I’ll only point out that promotion of just one rank is anything but ‘meteoric’. If anything happened to a ‘Taxiarch’, either a new senior commander would be drafted in, or one of the two ‘Chiliarchs’ would be promoted.

Perhaps you might be able to nominate just which dead taxiarch he replaced?

So then, Paralus, let us hear your explanation of who all these surplus ‘chiliarchs’ served with ?

A question best answered by the person postulating ten to twelve chiliarchs: yourself.

There is no certainty , or even likelihood, that Philotas’ troops are ‘light armed’ or even a hint that they were. What Arrian says is: “ the second division he put under the lead of Ptolemy, son of Lagus, including the third part of the royal shield-bearing guards [Hypaspists Basilikoi], the brigades of Philip and Philotas, two regiments of horse-archers, the Agrianians, and half of the cavalry.” […] To interpret Philotas’ Taxis on these two occasions as ‘light troops’ is very forced, to say the least.

Arrian describes the ground as “uneven” and this will be in part because of the hill as well as the nature of the ground. Again, the infantry engagement took place on the plain as was Alexander’s plan.

Again, if these are heavy infantry units of the phalanx, which taxiarchs have been replaced?

...insisting that the piece of evidence that is under discussion is correct and cannot be challenged is of itself a position of Faith not logic. It is touching that Curtius attracts such loyalty but I fancy it will be a rather small congregation!

At the very real risk of being declared a purveyor of sunburned clupeidae, Curtius can and does muddle his sources. Possibly the classic example is his order of battle for Gaugamela. Here Curtius writes “in reserve (subsidiis)stood Coenus and his detachment, and behind him were placed the Orestae and Lyncestae, followed by Polyperchon and then the foreign troops” as well as Krateros “in charge of the Peloponnesian cavalry - to which were attached squadrons of Achaeans” (4.13.27, 29). Aretes, sent against the Skythians (as per Arrian), is found, five lines later, in the rear protecting the baggage. It not only is internally contradictory, flies in the face of Arrian’s description but perhaps we should also take this notice verbatim.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
Neither does 8 chiliarchs for 4 chiliarchies of Hypaspists. Furthermore your suppositions are based on this being the only occasion chiliarchs were appointed. Perhaps this occasion merits notice because of its ‘en masse’ nature, and subsequent appointments of a chiliarch here or there, especially to a sub-unit of a phalanx ‘taxis’, would not be so noted. We know that other chiliarchs existed – Antiochus, Nearchus and Seleucus just to name 3 Hypaspist chiliarchs. That makes a total of at least 11....12 if you include Hephaestion, who is a ‘chiliarch’ of companion cavalry ( his command of two ‘hipparchies’ [ 512 men] is later termed a ‘chiliarchy’[1024 men]. )...and that is most unlikely to be a full list of the army’s chiliarchs. Way too many for just four chiliarchies of Hypaspists, so other parts of the “the forces” just as Curtius says, were organised into ‘thousands’. The term’s use of Companion cavalry alone demonstrates it was not unique to Hypaspists.
What’s more, we know from the Hellenistic manuals that a ‘taxis’ of the phalanx was made up of 2 chiliarchies. ( yes I know, you have claimed that this does not go back to Alexander, though there is no reason to think this, ( other than it is an inconvenient piece of evidence from your point of view) and Curtius makes it apparent that “the forces” [ not just the Hypaspists] were organised into chiliarchies at this time.)

One wonders where to start with this farrago; it is Xenophon’s contention that chiliarchia first appeared in Satrapene, but Alexander does not appoint a complete set of officers at one time; he appoints four to a doubled Hypaspist corps and four to the ordinary phalanx, what of the other two or three( if one accepts the creation of a seventh unit) phalanges? The proposition is a nonsense.

Oh dear! Farrago? Nonsense? Harsh words indeed ! It seems I am under a double-barrelled attack from our pillars of orthodoxy ( on this occasion at least !) LOL
Once again, I am obliged to point out that we must not take Curtius too literally, as Paralus seems to do. Just because no other specific appointments to ‘chiliarch’ are mentioned doesn’t mean there weren’t any, and we don’t have to look far to find other ‘chiliarchs’, as I have referred to.

Hephaistion did not, of course command two hipparchiai of whatever strength, but only one of the new hipparchia which passed to Perdikkas upon Hephaistion’s death, the Chiliarchy he held encompassed the command of the whole of the Companion Cavalry if the Diadoch evidence is anything to go by, and was a resurrection of the Persian Chiliarchate, which involved command of the ‘Kinsmen’ cavalry. The term is unrelated to its use in the Hypaspist corps.

This is one explanation, though not one I find convincing. It relies on rather thin non-contemporary evidence, and a number of assumptions, and yet may be termed the ‘orthodox’ view. I find this whole Hephaistion as 'Grand Vizier' concept bizarre. Alexander was well aware of Persia's history and the havoc wrought by over-mighty subjects. He went out of his way to remove such ( in the form of Parmenion and his family), and I doubt if he was going to resurrect such people - not even Hephaistion. There is ,a.f.i.k, little evidence that Hephaistion wielded such 'extra' powers.
Let us consider his position in the Hetairoi. It is possible that the expansion of the ‘Hetairoi’ passed through several evolutionary stages. It would seem odd that having taken the trouble to split the ‘Hetairoi’ command so as not to leave a too powerful command in the hands of one man, Alexander should reverse that policy, even for Hephaistion. At the time of Philotas’ death, the ‘Hetairoi’ consist of the ‘Agema’ probably numbering (probably) some 300, and 8 Ilai/squadrons of 250 (probably); some 2,000 in all.
At this point, the command is divided into two, each commanded by Hephaistion and Cleitus.[Arrian III.27.4] The two men, for want of a better term, are given the rank of ‘Hipparch/Cavalry Commander’, and each commands a nominal 1,024 men (note that the re-organisation culminating in new units of 512 strong units which will be termed ‘hipparchies’ is yet to occur.) Each now commands 8 ‘lochoi/companies or troops instead of the old 4 Iles. A unit of 4 ‘lochoi’ seems to have been called a ‘tetrarchy’ for some time, and ultimately a ‘hipparchy’[III.29.7], probably some 512 strong. The Macedonian Prodromoi disappear ( Alexander now had swarms of Asiatic light cavalry at this time – we hear of ‘ippotoxitai/horse archers [e.g. IV.24.1] and akontistai/mounted javelinmen [e,g, III.24.1]/ ) and were probably absorbed into the ‘Hetairoi’, which would make two more ‘hipparchies’. Where the remaining two we shortly hear of came from is an enigma ( as is the ultimate number of ‘hipparchies’ and their make-up, but I won’t digress! )
Since we don’t hear of later Macedonian cavalry reinforcements (IIRC- I am open to correction since I haven’t checked) it seems possible that firstly Greeks etc were admitted (Sittakene/Susa – Arrian says ALL the cavalry re-inforcements were drafted into the ‘Hetairoi’ [III.16.11], which apparently includes 500 Macedonians, 600 Thracians and 300 Peloponnesians in Curtius’ detailed figures.[V.1.41]. The infantry were distributed ‘kata ethne’ i.e. on an ethnic/tribal basis, which may mean Makedones to Macedonian units and Thracians to Thracian units etc, or may be a reference to the territorial/tribal units of the Macedonian phalanx.. On the other hand, Arrian/his sources may have been referring only to Macedonian troops - I tend to favour the latter. (unlike Curtius. It is not uncommon for non-Macedonians to be ignored, just as in Roman accounts non-Roman allies and later auxiliaries are.) Whoops! Falling into another digression there on the make-up of the Hetairoi......

To get back to Hephaistion, Hephaistion and Cleitus are ‘Hipparchs/cavalry commanders’ commanding 1,000 Companions each, or two ‘tetrarchia/later ‘hipparchia’ each; then more ‘hipparchia’ are created. Hephaistion’s and Cleitus’ commands are now ‘double hipparchia’ in effect – what would later in Hellenistic times be called ‘Epihipparchia’. After Cleitus’ death, it would seem that, as with Nicanor, no successor to his ‘double hipparchy’ was ever appointed. This now left one ‘double hipparchy’ and four, later possibly six other single hipparchia.[left for Companion Cavalry make-up thread ! ) What more natural than that this unit of a 1,000 or so Companions be called a ‘chiliarchy’ and its commander a Chiliarch ?
Does this leave Hephaistion in command of all the Hetairoi ? Apparently not, for thereafter we only hear of him as 'Chiliarch/commander of a thousand'[VII.14.10] not for example 'hegemon ' of the Hetairoi, and the most we hear of him leading is 'half' the Companions, on a temporary basis.

No need to make up the ‘Persian Grand Vizier’ scenario, which lacks real evidence, nor is there any evidence for him ever commanding all the Hetairois......

You really should know that the ‘taxis’ of your accurate manuals is a unit of only 128 men without any officers outside the formation (supernumaries) so it was NOT ‘made up of two chiliarchies.’; they call that a merarachia, though say it was formerly a ‘keras’ or wing, which is also the name Askleiodiotos gives to 8192 men, or a telos.

Of course I’m well aware of this! I simply chose to use the nomenclature of Alexander’s day for simplicity....I mentioned previously that there were changes in nomenclature between Alexander’s days and the manuals – for example the appearance of Tarentinarchia....This is what in boxing terms would be called “a cheap shot” – nitpicking if you like. Or alternately ‘muddying the waters’, or a ‘red herring’.....pick which you will
I am quite certain you are well aware of my meaning, but for those curious, the 'taxis' of Alexander's day had been renamed 'merarchis'. It is easy to follow the changed nomenclature without confusion....

That units of 500 or so (called lochoi) existed prior to this re-organisation cannot be disputed.

Well I dispute it and defy you to give the references.

OK....I’ll do my best. The re-organisation occurs in Arrian at III.16.11 into ‘thousands’ of the ‘forces/numeri’ - not just Hypapists. (Curtius). However, ‘lochoi’ don’t disappear from the ‘orbat’ –for example at Arrian IV.2.1 each company of infantry [pezoi kata lochois] is ordered to prepare a set number of scaling ladders each; at VI.27.6, the march through the Gedrosian desert, camels are distributed at the rate of one per 100 cavalry, and to the various ‘lochoi’ of infantry; at VII.11.3 the Makedones complain about imitation units, including Persian ‘lochous’; at VII.24.4 we have sacrificial meat and wine distributed, again to cavalry “100’s/ekatostuas" and 'lochous'.

As to prior to the re-organisation we have Alexander at Issus addressing “Ilarchs and lochagoi” – and that these were Macedonian is confirmed because the mercenaries etc are addressed separately[Arrian II.10.2]
Another occasion prior to reorganisation is before Gaugemala [III.9.6] when once again Alexander addresses his ‘lochagoi’, ‘ilarchai', ‘taxiarchs’, and ‘leaders/hegemons’ of that part of the phalanx entrusted to them.
Clearly sub-units of ‘lochoi’ continued throughout.....

I can only assume the euphoria of the imminent Ashes triumph has de-stabilised things in the Xenophontic cranium.Normal service will be resumed soon, I am sure

Not for a while ....lunch-break here, England all out for 250 or so – tail predictably collapsed again !!

Meanwhile I see I am falling behind again....but matters will have to wait, Austarlia's second innings beckons, on a wicket rapidly cracking up.....