Neoptolemos: the invisible Archihypaspist

[Paralus]

Once again, I am obliged to point out that we must not take Curtius too literally, as Paralus seems to do.

Oh dear, it is clearly yourself who takes Curtius at his word. It is more than a bungee cord stretch to lay that claim at my door. How about we stick to our claims huh?

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.

There is no doubt that the tactical unit of the Companion cavalry (after Kleitos' death) was the hipparchy; something it still was at Alexander's death. As I've already demonstrated, there is no reference to chiliarchies of the Companion cavalry, only hipparchies and their commanders no matter how hard you search. Your "non contemporary" evidence can only be that of the Babylonian Settlement as I've already given. This is within walking distance of Alexander's corpse. Just how contemporary would you have it?

As to Hepaestion's supposed "Grand Vizier" status, no one - other than yourself - has raised this. Surely the ultimate sunburned clupeidae.

By the way, Agesilaos nowhere wrote what you have him say in your last post; that was you (perhaps you might edit the post?).

[Paralus]

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......

Yet again you raise what no one else has ("the ‘Persian Grand Vizier’ scenario"). Perhaps because it distracts from your argument? Hephaestion's "Chiliarchy" has no relation to either numbers or the divisions of the infantry; this is simply your confection. The assertion that he did not command the Companion cavalry is simply incorrect and the evidence - from multiple sources - demonstrates such. On your very literal understanding Antipatros gave Kassandros command of 1,000 troops. Just which troops might these have been?

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:
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.

(Sigh! ) I’m afraid it is not I who “take Curtius literally”, but rather you [ e.g. “ He names eight only and the eighth is listed as he who finished “last” (ultimum). There were only eight and no more.” ...and....
“ 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.”
...and...
“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" .......( I shan’t repeat the lengthy passage relying on Curtius) ...as examples. ]
Despite the transparent attempts to set up a straw man by claiming it is I who rely on Curtius literally, I haven’t postulated anything based on Curtius literal “8 chiliarchs” – in fact just the opposite! I DON’T take Curtius too literally, for as I have demonstrated, there were clearly more than 8 chiliarchs in the army, and they were not all of the Hypaspist Corps either. Nor were the 'eight' the only appointments of chiliarchs, as I have demonstrated.

I posed two questions to try and determine your position. You singularly failed to answer. Do you, for example, subscribe to the lame theory that Curtius ‘must have’ meant pentekosiarchs ? Or perhaps each ‘chiliarchy’ of Hypaspists has an “heir and a spare” ?

It might pay us to pause and remember that our sources are not what we would call “War Diaries” and they are concerned with Alexander and the major events of his life and those around him rather than the doings of the army. If Curtius is correct in saying it was “the forces” rather than just the Hypaspists who formed in chiliarchies, then, when those reforms had been complete there were of the order of two dozen chiliarchs in all – we would not expect to hear of their doings in detail. The Hypaspists are mentioned over 40 times in Arrian, way more than any other infantry unit of the phalanx, because they are Alexander’s Guards, for example. It must be manifest that we shall hear almost exclusively of them. In fact chiliarchies and chiliarchs are mentioned a mere half dozen or so or so times in Arrian, once referring to Hephaistion as a chiliarch of cavalry, [VII.14.10]once with reference to the archers [IV.24.10], once with reference to raising Persian units [VII.11.3], once to Addaios the chiliarch who commands a 'taxis' at Halicarnassus [I.22.7], and a mere 3 times with reference to Hypaspists - when pursuing Bessus [III.29.7], and when Antiochus and Nearchus are referred to [IV.30.5 and 6],Ptolemy with a detached force containing 3 chiliarchies of Hypaspists [V.23.7], and lastly when Alexander is dying, 'chiliarchs and pentekosiarchs' are kept outside while Generals/Strategoi are admitted [VII.25.6]. This impliedly refers to the army as a whole, and that there are many of them - if it were just Hypaspists there would be just 8 such men. Arrian here for the first and only time uses 'pentekosiarch/commander of 500 rather than 'lochagos'. [For completeness we also have two occasions when Nabarzanes is referred to as chiliarch of cavalry].
In Curtius we have the famous creation of 8 named 'chiliarchs' [V.2.3], nothing of relevance in Diodorus.

All in all, hardly persuasive that 'chiliarch's were restricted to just 4 'chiliarchies' of Hypaspists.....


Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote: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).

Seleucus can hardly have been anything other than a ‘chiliarch’ in this passage. He commands one unit of 'Hypaspists Basilikoi' but there are 'other' Hypaspists[Basilikoi] not under his command.

The foregoing, essentially restating what I’ve posted earlier, is not supposition. It is what Curtius is literally writing.

Who is relying on the literal application of Curtius?

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.

What is not logical about this? It would be illogical for Alexander to have disrupted the command structure of his whole Army at one time –it is surely easy to understand why major changes were instituted gradually. And while we are at it we should explain the likely reason that Alexander made these changes. It is probably because whilst sub-units of 500 or so were practical in small, narrow Greek valleys, they were inadequate on the open plains of Asia, and, as the Persians had found, tactical sub-units of “1,000” worked better in that geography.

The 3 chiliarchies of Hypaspists form the 'heavy' phalanx making one command, and the light troops a second command. It is simply not credible that Nearchos combined his own chilarchy with the light troops, separate from the other heavy troops....

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.

Very speculative, and without evidence! This alas, is ‘special pleading’. Previously, when a senior officer falls in the line of duty e.g. Addaios and Ptolemy at Halicarnassus, or Admetus at Tyre or Ptolemy son of Seleucus at Issus etc, they rate a ‘mentioned in despatches’ from Arrian. If any senior Hypaspist officers had died at Massaka, we should surely have heard of it – Arrian seems to have been conscientious about such things.
I also disagree about the number of Hypaspist chiliarchies. All the evidence suggests that in the latter part of the campaign, there existed the Agema and three ‘chilarchies’ of ‘Hypaspists Basilikoi’.


Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote: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.

This is growing tiresome. From the outset I’ve made it plain I don’t take Curtius “literally” – it is you whose case relies on doing so. I have pointed out – and proven- that there were MORE than eight chiliarchies, and when invited to, you cannot even offer up an explanation for where the eight you cleave to are posted, let alone the ten you seem to have previously admitted existed. We seem to agree that Curtius records an unusual occasion when 8 chiliarchs were created simultaneously, but there were certainly other chiliarchs – and not all Hypaspists.

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote:…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.

Not entirely accurate for bodies of archers are also referred to as generic 'units/taxeis' ( e.g. V.23.7 where Ptolemy has one taxis of archers)


Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote: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.

Actually, my intention was not to go down any prosopographical path simply to point to possibilities, which did not involve Hypaspists. Your observation begs for an alternate explanation of where these surplus ‘chiliarchs’ served. Do you have one ?


Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote: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?

A rhetorical question. Clearly I was speaking hypothetically, as is evident from the grammar.

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote: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.

Avoiding the question, I see. I thought you agreed we had 10 named chiliarchs in the sources,(plus un-named non-Hypaspist chiliarchs, and the sole cavalry chiliarch, Hephaistion) only 4 of whom have definite later associations with the Hypaspists (Antiochus and Nearchus for certain, and by association Attarhias and Antigenes - who may have been a 'taxiarch in the phalanx also )
You seem to vaccilate between saying there were 8 “and only 8” and agreeing that 10 are named. Try explaining, with even indirect evidence, where the additional chiliarchs of the ‘mass appointment’ went, if not the phalanx.



Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote: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?

An unanswerable question, I’m afraid....there are certainly one, possibly two additional Macedonian ‘taxeis’ of sarissaphoroi created ultimately making a total of 8, and in other instances there are temporary commanders ‘filling in’. Also, sometimes it is unclear just which troops are being commanded by whom. For example, at Hydaspes we have Alexander’s phalanx, consisting of the Hypaspists and the brigades of Coenus and Cleitus, commanded jointly by Seleucus who appears to be a chiliarch in charge of Hypaspists Basilikoi [Arrian V.13], Antigenes, later also associated with Hypaspists, but who may have commanded a taxis of the phalanx at this time [ see Arrian VI.17.3 where 3 taxeis seem to be deployed under Craterus], and Tauron, and such commands could be either temporary or permanent, e.g. Simmias who commanded his brother Amyntas’ brigade at Gaugamela, while he was away recruiting in Macedonia..

[digression: Earlier I postulated that there might have been more than one Tauron, given the paucity of Macedonian names, but on reflection now agree with Paralus that on balance of probability it is likely that Tauron “the commander of archers” is being spoken of here – a commander of 2,000 was equivalent to a phalanx ‘taxiarch’ and sufficiently senior to hold such a command, despite not being a ‘heavy’ infantry commander]



Paralus wrote:

agesilaos wrote:...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.

“sunburned clupeidae” ? my first thought was ‘sunburned sardines’ ? ....but it eventually dawned on me you are alluding to ‘red herrings !!......a nice 'bon mot'...
That any source is capable of mistake goes without saying, but one cannot use one mistake ( if it is such, great care must be taken – as demonstrated by Arrian’s supposed anachronisms) to imply that another passage is necessarily an error, just because it does not fit certain modern concepts. That is the sort of illogical thinking I was alluding to earlier.

[Xenophon]

On the previous page, Agesilaos wrote:

Perhaps I should summarise the facts...............

....followed by a lengthy post. Now that the Ashes are back where they belong for the next two years, normal service can be resumed !

I am in the process of working up a response, which should be ready for posting before too long - assuming Paralus can wait before forging ahead....

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

There is no doubt that the tactical unit of the Companion cavalry (after Kleitos' death) was the hipparchy; something it still was at Alexander's death. As I've already demonstrated, there is no reference to chiliarchies of the Companion cavalry, only hipparchies and their commanders no matter how hard you search. Your "non contemporary" evidence can only be that of the Babylonian Settlement as I've already given. This is within walking distance of Alexander's corpse. Just how contemporary would you have it ?

...Except the reference I supplied at VII.14.10 where Hephaistion still commands his previous 'half' of the Companion cavalry i.e two Hipparchia of 500 or so, which adds up to a chiliarchy, hence he is referred to as 'Chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry'. With no successor to Cleitus appointed after his death, the remaining (expanded) Companions are all in single 'hipparchies'. He is of course the sole 'chiliarch', but this does not make him Commander of all, nor does he ever command ( on a temporary basis) more than 'half the Companions'.

As to Hepaestion's supposed "Grand Vizier" status, no one - other than yourself - has raised this. Surely the ultimate sunburned clupeidae.

Apologies, I was not intending to digress, merely show that 1,000 cavalry could be termed a 'chiliarchy', as well as archers, to demonstrate that 'chiliarchies' were not a specialist term applied to Hypaspists, but just another generic piece of Greek terminology, for units of a thousand.
You are evidently enamoured with your new 'bon mot' - try not to over-use it !

By the way, Agesilaos nowhere wrote what you have him say in your last post; that was you (perhaps you might edit the post?).

A bit over the top for a simple 'nested quotes' problem.....anyway now corrected.....

Yet again you raise what no one else has ("the ‘Persian Grand Vizier’ scenario"). Perhaps because it distracts from your argument? Hephaestion's "Chiliarchy" has no relation to either numbers or the divisions of the infantry; this is simply your confection. The assertion that he did not command the Companion cavalry is simply incorrect and the evidence - from multiple sources - demonstrates such.

See above - that Hephaistion was ever some sort of "number two" or Grand vizier to Alexander I don't believe....there is simply no evidence for same. He certainly was never, A.F.I.K, appointed to command the whole Companion cavalry. Along with Cleitus, he was originally appointed to command half - at that time 1,000 troopers, and then later the numbers of Hipparchies was expanded, but Hephaistion's command was apparently not increased, for at his death, he still commands only 1,000 Companion cavalry - a chiliarchy/unit 1,000 strong. Such a 'double strength' unit would later be called an 'epihipparchy'.....
Anyway, see above, it is not my intention to digress .....

If you have evidence from multiple sources that he commanded the whole, I'd be interested to see it. Rather than open a digression worthy of a thread, perhaps you'd send references privately, so as not to 'derail' this thread for the 'n'th time !!!

[Paralus]

Just in from Christmas related site work and there’s been flood of missives. A six am start tomorrow so I’ll just deal with the last.

If you have evidence from multiple sources that he commanded the whole, I'd be interested to see it. Rather than open a digression worthy of a thread, perhaps you'd send references privately, so as not to 'derail' this thread for the 'n'th time !!!

Well, no. This relates directly to your need to have Hepaestion as one of your twelve chiliarchs appointed at Sittakene or at some time later down the Afghan track along with others not mentioned by Curtius.

...Except the reference I supplied at VII.14.10 where Hephaistion still commands his previous 'half' of the Companion cavalry i.e two Hipparchia of 500 or so, which adds up to a chiliarchy, hence he is referred to as 'Chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry'. With no successor to Cleitus appointed after his death, the remaining (expanded) Companions are all in single 'hipparchies'. He is of course the sole 'chiliarch', but this does not make him Commander of all, nor does he ever command ( on a temporary basis) more than 'half the Companions'

I’m afraid you still confuse Hephaestion’s Chiliarchy with a commander of 1,000 troops. Aiding this confusion is the conflation of 3.27.4 with 7.14.10. For a start, we have no idea of the size of the Companion cavalry at the time of Philotas’ death. Just added, at Sittakene, were 500 Macedonians (on Curtius’ numbers) and, as of the pursuit of Darius, the prodromoi / ‘scouts’ are never again attested (3.21.2). The consensus is that these were folded into the Companion cavalry when the alteration to hipparchies was carried out. Both events are near contemporary and the complete disappearance of this unit is difficult to explain otherwise (it can hardly have simply been disbanded.)

Once again, at 3.27.4 Arrian does not create two hipparchies of Companion cavalry. As the rest of his work shows, he is eminently capable of referring to the units of the Companion cavalry by their nomenclature – ‘hipparchies’ – and does so on numerous occasions after that nomenclature applied. He pointedly does not say so here. What he writes is that Alexander created two commanders of the Companion cavalry – aαταστήσας ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑταίρους ἱππάρχας δύο – and then divided that taxis into two (καὶ δίχα διελὼν τὴν τάξιν τῶν ἑταίρων / and divided into two the unit/battalion of the Companions). Nowhere does Arrian say that the Companions were divided into hipparchies nor is there any mention of Hephaestion commanding a ‘chiliarchy’ of Companions. Whatever the existing number was it was simply divided down the middle. No ‘chiliarchy’ is created here and – a fortiori – nor was a chiliarch.

...that Hephaistion was ever some sort of "number two" or Grand vizier to Alexander I don't believe....there is simply no evidence for same. He certainly was never, A.F.I.K, appointed to command the whole Companion cavalry. Along with Cleitus, he was originally appointed to command half - at that time 1,000 troopers, and then later the numbers of Hipparchies was expanded, but Hephaistion's command was apparently not increased, for at his death, he still commands only 1,000 Companion cavalry - a chiliarchy/unit 1,000 strong.

Firstly, you well know that I do not hold to Hephaestion having any such “Grand Vizier” status (nor Agesilaos from memory) so this piece of red piscatorial matter can be dispensed with. That he was the second officer of the army is a completely different matter.

There is no evidence to support the claim that Hephaestion commanded 1,000 Companion cavalry. Again, we do not know the numbers of the Companion cavalry and nor do we even know the number of hipparchies. We are not even textually informed of the size of a single hipparchy. Repeating this based on a flawed (and conflated reading) of Arrian does not make it so.

I have already adduced the source material relating to Hepaestion’s cavalry command. For the record I will go through it again. Firstly, Arrian’s (Ptolemy’s) assertion that no one was appointed to Hephaestion’s Chiliarchy is not supported by the other sources who state that Perdikkas was awarded this position(much as Alexander giving his signet ring to Perdikkas).

Plutarch, Eum. 1.2:
…on the Indian expedition he (Eumenes) was actually sent out as general with a force under his own orders, and received the command in the cavalry which Perdiccas had held, when Perdiccas, after Hephaestion's death, was advanced to that officer's position.

Just what was that officer's (Hephaestion's) position?

Diod. 18.3.4:
He placed Seleucus in command of the cavalry of the Companions (ἱππαρχίαν τῶν ἑταίρων), a most distinguished office; for Hephaestion commanded them first, Perdiccas after him, and third the above-named Seleucus.

Appian, Syr. 57:
Directly after the death of Alexander he (Seleukos) became the leader of the Companion cavalry (ἡγεμὼν τῆς ἵππου τῆς ἑταιρικῆς), which Hephæstion, and afterwards Perdiccas, commanded during the life of Alexander.

In the Settlement of Triparadeisos, the Heildelberg Epitome has Kassandros appointed χιλίαρχος with which Diodorus coheres. Arrian, who says that Antipatros had given the “forces which had been under Perdikkas (the royal army) to Antigonos, describes his concomitant appointment of Kassandros as χιλίαρχης τῆς ἵπποιι or “chiliarch of the cavalry” (1.38).

It is clear that the ancient sources are firm that Perdikkas and Seleukos succeeded to the “command in the cavalry” that Hephaestion held. Further, they are united in the fact that this command meant the command of the Companion cavalry. As well, it is unlikely in the extreme that Antipatros appointed Kassadros commander of just 1,000 cavalry: the term does not relate to numbers. Nor did it do so for Hephaestion no matter how your argument might require it to be so.

What is also clear is that this position was the most important command in the army after the king - as was to be expected of the cavalry command. The old structure - exemplified by Parmenion - was gone. Justin (13.4.17) actually describes Seleukos' position in Babylon as "the chief command of the camp" (Summus castrorum tribunatus). That none of the Diodochi ever wanted it (Antipatros revived it again for Kassandros) does not detract from the fact: they all sort the top prize rather than second place.

[agesilaos]

LOL!! Your position is now that Curtius is not accurate, other than the detail you wish to cling to - that the 'forces' were only now grouped into units of 1000 - amazing

The size of higher formations has nothing to do with the terrain, the Persians had a decimal system which started at ten and progressed through 100 (probably the basic manouvre unit, as that would be a square) to a theoretical 10,000. Athens organised her hoplites in thousands by tribe yet operated in the same terrain as the Spartans zipping around in 512 strong lochoi (according to Thucydides) or 600 strong morai (following Xenophon) though of course these represent a 'norm' as musters tend not to restrict themselves on mathematical grounds and the Spartans varied the age groups called up with a concommitant effect on the field strength of their units. Re the 'lochoi'in Arrian, I will reply in a separate thread soon.

It is, indeed odd that Alexander allegedly, introduces a lower command level in the cavalry, splitting the ilai in twain but at the same time agglomerates the infantry into larger commands. Given the nature of the coming campaign, chasing elusive foes rather than stand up fights the ability to spread thin and wide would be useful.

As IV 4 vi-vii shows the sarrisophoroi were still separately organised by ilai while the Companions (and the mercenaries) were organised into hipparchiai; that the remainder of the Companions can be organised by ile does suggest that the hipparchiai might be larger than the original ilai, but it is equally possible that all we have is a change of nomenclature, with the ilai being renamed hipparchiai and the source (who may be Aristoboulos here, he uses 'sarrisophoroi' rather than 'prodromoi') is merely using 'ile' here to mean the smallest tactical unit.

6] ὡς δὲ ἀθρόοι ἐπὶ τῇ ὄχθῃ ἐγένοντο, ἐφῆκεν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σκύθας τὸ μὲν πρῶτον μίαν ἱππαρχίαν τῶν ξένων καὶ τῶν σαρισσοφόρων ἴλας τέσσαρας: καὶ τούτους δεξάμενοι οἱ Σκύθαι καὶ ἐς κύκλους περιϊππεύοντες ἔβαλλόν τε πολλοὶ ὀλίγους καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ χαλεπῶς διεφύγγανον. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ τούς τε τοξότας καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψιλούς, ὧν Βάλακρος ἦρχεν, ἀναμίξας τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ἐπῆγεν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σκύθας.[7] ὡς δὲ ὁμοῦ ἤδη ἐγίγνοντο, ἐλάσαι ἐκέλευσεν ἐς αὐτοὺς τῶν τε ἑταίρων τρεῖς ἱππαρχίας καὶ τοὺς ἱππακοντιστὰς ξύμπαντας: καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ τὴν λοιπὴν ἵππον ἄγων σπουδῇ ἐνέβαλεν ὀρθίαις ταῖς ἴλαις

One persistant error concerns a 'tetrachia', this does NOT mean something composed of four parts but a fourth part of something eg Galatia or Iudaea. A tetrachia of the Companion cavalry should therefore be a quarter of something. Conveniently, if an ile was 256 strong, which Diodoros' figures for the contingents at the crossing would allow, then 1/4 is 64, and that is the strength of a wedge with eight men in the longest file, the greatest useful depth for cavalry according to Polybios!

The office of 'Chiliarch' a la Hephaistion, Seleukos and Kassandros could fill half a book in itself; for the record I do think it was a revival of the Persian office held under Dareios III by Nabarzanes, but I reject the idea that the of 'The Grand Vizier', this is a Nineteenth Century comparison that does not really bear scrutiny. Some Chiliarchs did use the oppotunities the office afforded to gain de facto power and influence, but there seems no evidence that the office itself had these de iure; one may think of Sejanus' position, or, more recently, Iosef Stalin who was only the Party Mebership Secretary.

[Paralus]

As IV 4 vi-vii shows the sarrisophoroi were still separately organised by ilai while the Companions (and the mercenaries) were organised into hipparchiai;

I couldn't find that one - having searched only via prodromoi. That is correct and it is the last attested appearance of these sarisa carrying cavalry. Yes, whoever the source is speaks of hipparchai of companions attacking in column of ilai (ὀρθίαις ταῖς ἴλαις). Bosworth notes that the prodromoi may be termed "ilai" as stylistic variation.

On the size of the Companion cavalry and its number of units, a hipparchy of 512 cannot be feasible. Arrian (4.22.7) writes that Alexander divided the "army" (διελὼν τὴν στρατιὰν). He gave Hephaestion and Perdikkas "half the Companion cavalry" (τῶν ἑταίρων ἱππέων τοὺς ἡμίσεας) as well as the taxies of Gorgias, Kleitos and Meleaghros. Alexander takes the rest of the Companions "not with Hephaestion" (and the phalanx units as later passages attest). Alexander is then described as leading the cavalry agema and four hipparchies of these Companions (4.24.1). The conclusion is that the Companion cavalry had at least eight hipparchies at this time or some 4,096 troops according to Xenophon's figures. I do not think it likely at all that Thracians and Peloponnesians (or other Greeks) were ever admitted to the Companion cavalry en masse.

Also interesting here are the named phalanx 'taxeis'. Hephaestion has the above named three and, as it turns out with further reading, Alexander has another four: Polyperchon and Koinos (4.25.6); Alcetas (4.27.1 & 5); Attalus (4.24.1 & 10). There is no mention, significantly, of the phalanx taxeis of Philip or the recently promoted Philotas and all of these phalanx taxis commanders are known from earlier in the campaign.

As for Narbazanes, he is described by Arrian as χιλιάρχης τῶν ξὺν Δαρείῳ φευγόντων ἱππέων or the chilicarch of the cavalry that fled with Darius. Again he is Darius' chiliarch of the Kinsmen. This mirrors Hephaestion's position in Alexander's army where he commands the Macedonian version of the Persian king's 'Kinsmen': the Companions. Alexander is definitely described a adopting the Persian office of chiliarch by Diodorus (18.48.5). He does not mean as the commander of 1,000 horse.

Right, break over and time for more work related Christmas duty. I will be glad when next Wednesday arrives...

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

LOL!! Your position is now that Curtius is not accurate, other than the detail you wish to cling to - that the 'forces' were only now grouped into units of 1000 - amazing

Obviously not - as anyone ( is there anyone?) following this thread will know. Are the sarcastic slings and arrows really necessary ?

The size of higher formations has nothing to do with the terrain, the Persians had a decimal system which started at ten and progressed through 100 (probably the basic manouvre unit, as that would be a square) to a theoretical 10,000. Athens organised her hoplites in thousands by tribe yet operated in the same terrain as the Spartans zipping around in 512 strong lochoi (according to Thucydides) or 600 strong morai (following Xenophon) though of course these represent a 'norm' as musters tend not to restrict themselves on mathematical grounds and the Spartans varied the age groups called up with a concommitant effect on the field strength of their units. Re the 'lochoi'in Arrian, I will reply in a separate thread soon.It is, indeed odd that Alexander allegedly, introduces a lower command level in the cavalry, splitting the ilai in twain but at the same time agglomerates the infantry into larger commands. Given the nature of the coming campaign, chasing elusive foes rather than stand up fights the ability to spread thin and wide would be useful.

Actually, the size and structure of armies frequently changes with terrain, climate, tactical situation and a number of other factors. It is not "on the battlefield" that is here being referred to, but all the other army tasks, often on a daily basis, such as forage, reconnaissance camp-building etc. Wider areas/terrain to be observed will mean cavalry sub-units must be broken into smaller parties, conversely an area of unusual resistance might mean sub-units being combined into larger ones for self-defence. Larger infantry sub-units mean 'mini armies' each of which is self-sufficient thus allowing occupation of larger areas or more settlements.
[digression: whilst Athens called up its hoplites by tribes of roughly a thousand or so, this was an administrative rather than tactical function. Care must be taken to distinguish admin from tactical organisation.The figures for a Spartan 'Mora' are incorrect. Thucydides figure is wrong - a fact of which he himself is aware.Other sources give a number varying between 500 or so and 1,000, and the entry in Photios under "morai" specifies 500-1,000 men. The variations ( and flexibility, depending on the force required) come from the fact that the 'morai' were made up of 'enomotarchies'/platoons, each 40 strong with all age-groups called up ( including veterans). The number of age-groups (e.g those 25 years from manhood/45 yr olds) allowed completely flexible Spartan Task-Forces.]

As IV 4 vi-vii shows the sarrisophoroi were still separately organised by ilai while the Companions (and the mercenaries) were organised into hipparchiai; that the remainder of the Companions can be organised by ile does suggest that the hipparchiai might be larger than the original ilai, but it is equally possible that all we have is a change of nomenclature, with the ilai being renamed hipparchiai and the source (who may be Aristoboulos here, he uses 'sarrisophoroi' rather than 'prodromoi') is merely using 'ile' here to mean the smallest tactical unit.

The most probable explanation is that the original 8 "Iles" of around 256 strong ( to be explored in numbers thread) were re-organised into what ultimately came to be called 4 'Hipparchia' (initially), as I explained earlier.( excluding the Royal Ile/Ile Basilikoi, likely expanded from some 300 strong to full 'Hipparchia' strength of 512 when it became the 'Agema' (Arrian III.19.6 and IV.24.2). The 'sarissaphoroi/prodromoi' were probably used to bolster the Companions and became incorporated therein some time after their last appearance, still organised in Ilai at Arr IV.4.6.

ὡς δὲ ἀθρόοι ἐπὶ τῇ ὄχθῃ ἐγένοντο, ἐφῆκεν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σκύθας τὸ μὲν πρῶτον μίαν ἱππαρχίαν τῶν ξένων καὶ τῶν σαρισσοφόρων ἴλας τέσσαρας: καὶ τούτους δεξάμενοι οἱ Σκύθαι καὶ ἐς κύκλους περιϊππεύοντες ἔβαλλόν τε πολλοὶ ὀλίγους καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ χαλεπῶς διεφύγγανον. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ τούς τε τοξότας καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ψιλούς, ὧν Βάλακρος ἦρχεν, ἀναμίξας τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ἐπῆγεν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σκύθας.[7] ὡς δὲ ὁμοῦ ἤδη ἐγίγνοντο, ἐλάσαι ἐκέλευσεν ἐς αὐτοὺς τῶν τε ἑταίρων τρεῖς ἱππαρχίας καὶ τοὺς ἱππακοντιστὰς ξύμπαντας: καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ τὴν λοιπὴν ἵππον ἄγων σπουδῇ ἐνέβαλεν ὀρθίαις ταῖς ἴλαις

One persistant error concerns a 'tetrachia', this does NOT mean something composed of four parts but a fourth part of something eg Galatia or Iudaea. A tetrachia of the Companion cavalry should therefore be a quarter of something. Conveniently, if an ile was 256 strong, which Diodoros' figures for the contingents at the crossing would allow, then 1/4 is 64, and that is the strength of a wedge with eight men in the longest file, the greatest useful depth for cavalry according to Polybios!

That may be co-incidence, for the 'persistent error' is not in fact so. Many Greek numbers have an ambiguous meaning, especially in a military context. 'Pentekostyes' for example can mean 'fifty' or a 'fiftieth'. That tetrarchy can refer to a unit of four, as well as a 'quarter' is shown by Arrian himself [Tactica 10.1] where he tells us that (referring to infantry in this case) 4 'lochoi' make up a 'tetrarchy'.[c.f. Ael.Tact.9.2, Ascl.Tact.2.8 and LSJ ]

The office of 'Chiliarch' a la Hephaistion, Seleukos and Kassandros could fill half a book in itself; for the record I do think it was a revival of the Persian office held under Dareios III by Nabarzanes, but I reject the idea that the of 'The Grand Vizier', this is a Nineteenth Century comparison that does not really bear scrutiny. Some Chiliarchs did use the oppotunities the office afforded to gain de facto power and influence, but there seems no evidence that the office itself had these de iure; one may think of Sejanus' position, or, more recently, Iosef Stalin who was only the Party Mebership Secretary.

I would by and large agree. I was really only referring to the title 'chiliarch' in the military sense of commander of 1,000/chiliarchy in being part of the catalogue of usages of the term. That is the context of the section at [VII.14.10] where it is apparent that the passage deals with succession to the command of Hephaistion's 'chiliarchy' qua Companion Cavalry command.

[agesilaos]

If you feel strongly against sarcasm, then I presume you too will refrain; since it was not intended with any malice I am happy to apologise for any offence and try to restrain my cruel and twisted nature ; once you clarify what you think is accurate in Curtius and what you reject, for it does seem to have roamed quite flexibly, and that explains Paralus' comments, it is like wrestling eels.

I think we should agree to keep the discussion of the cavalry reform to the number thread. I will just say that there are two ways of looking at Arrian et al's 'tetrarchia'; you say that it is four 'lochoi', files in this case; I say that it is a quarter of the major unit called a 'syntagma', I will further support that interpretation by reference to the other quadripartite entities of which a single part is a 'tetrarchy', I doubt either one of us will move from their position. Nor will I pretend that I can make an impartial judgement between your incredibly weak position and my unassailable one

I have to disagree on the size and structure of armies changing with the theatre; although it will probably sound like a quibble. What generally happens is that the structure is unchanged but the forces deploy at a different niveau or level, such considerations are more apt to the homogenised warfare of the firearms age. A small well-armed force can hold superior numbers at a distance with fire-power, in the ancient world small units will just be overwhelmed unless there are very specific restricted access issues. Whilst, the lochoi division among the cavalry might allow wider spread of forces it also allowed more men to be rewarded with the new rank. The real problem is that the sources do not go into the small level often and we simply do not here of deployment at 'lochos' level, so , even though I agree that the splitting of the ilai would allow more widespread scouting and low-intensity warfare we don't actually hear of it.

Alexander did form, battle groups or army corps, but he used the existing army structures when he did (with the exception of the third of the Hypaspistai basilikoi given to Ptolemy, in my interpretation).

[Paralus]

A Christmas gift for Xenophon:

He’s reading the posts,
He’s checking them twice
He’s gonna find out if they’re twaddle or nice
Paralus Claus is coming to town

This is growing tiresome. From the outset I’ve made it plain I don’t take Curtius “literally” – it is you whose case relies on doing so. I have pointed out – and proven- that there were MORE than eight chiliarchies, and when invited to, you cannot even offer up an explanation for where the eight you cleave to are posted, let alone the ten you seem to have previously admitted existed.

The melodrama aside, the wording and language is interesting. You claim that I have “previously admitted” that ten chiliarchies existed in Alexander’s army. This is wrong and misrepresents what I have written. Before continuing, it should be noted that these supposed ten chiliarchies are arrived at by the conflation of two totally distinct sources: a single notice of eight ‘chiliarchs’ by Curtius (the only source to mention this) and the noting of chiliarchs by Arrian. Those noted by Arrian (and not rejected by you) are Antiokhos and Nearkhos. Both are hypaspist chiliarchs. My position is not that there were “ten chiliarchies” but that if Curtius is accurate, there were eight such. Further, if we conflate Arrian’s note of the above two hypaspist chiliarchs with Curtius’ eight, there are ten chiliarchs named by both. That is not the same as there being “ten chiliarchies” and to suggest I agreed so is incorrect.

If Cutius is correct and if we conflate both sources, there are reasons for the replacement of chiliarchs as I’ve noted and which have been rejected by you on the grounds that Arrian does not name the dead chiliarchs. On your reading, these are the only two hypaspist chiliarchs named by Arrian in the entire work. That he does not record the death of others is not surprising given that he never bothers to name any others even in contexts where such could be noted. It is far more likely a function of his source noting these two officers in this one instance and not bothering to note others elsewhere (it is interesting to note that Philotas, the phalanx infantry chiliarch promoted to taxiarch according to yourself, manages such without Arrian – who “seems to have been conscientious about such things” – mentioning the fate of the taxiarch he replaced).

Your case has, from the beginning, been rooted in Curtius’ notice of these chiliarchs of Sittakene. Indeed you have claimed that “there must have been chilarchies in the phalanx on the strength of Curtius' evidence” and this because Curtius names eight. You then add further by claiming the archers had chiliarchs (though none is ever named and they are only ever commanded by a single officer) and that the cavalry had a unit of 1,000 commanded by a similar chiliarch, Hephaestion. When confronted with the uncomfortable fact that “Curtius’ evidence” is only eight such officers you have alternately proposed that not all the Macedonian heavy infantry were so organised at this time or that the lot was so organised only there were “existing commanders” to fill these vacancies; that is those not noted (for whatever reason) by Curtius.

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 […]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.

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.

Difficult to know just which it is you are arguing for. The first is, as Agesilaos noted and with which I agree, “nonsense”. We have four hypaspist chiliarchs (on your count) and only two taxeis of the phalanx organised as such – the rest wait until some opportune later date and available 'men of valour'. Perhaps, then, four taxeis of the phalanx were so organised and only two hypaspist chiliarchies created (as only two are associated as you say). Neither makes sense: there is no reason to reorganise half the hypaspists and even less to reorganise two thirds of the phalanx taxeis (or visa-versa). On your second view, I have already pointed out that is was clearly “existing commanders” (officers of whichever level below taxiarch) who competed for the eight positions in Curtius’ passage. They are, then, no different to your un-named existing commanders. What then to make of the following?

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.

The only reason you “know this” and that “it cannot be doubted” is that Curtius does not name them amongst his eight ‘chiliarchs’. So then, was it a case of no “existing commanders to accommodate into the new structure” or did Alexander decide only to reorganise one half of his Guard unit? Best not be taking Curtius too literally here.

As I’ve noted, Curtius is the only source to record this “competition”. Diodorus records only that Alexander “wanted to advance some officers and to strengthen the forces by the number and the ability of the commanders. This he effected. He scrutinized closely the reports of good conduct and promoted many from a high military command to an even higher responsibility, so that by giving all the commanders greater prestige he bound them to himself by strong ties of affection” (17.65.2-3). Clearly, as I note above, existing officers competed here. Now, Diodorus (book 17) and Curtius are universally agreed to have shared a common source. Whilst it is not unlikely that the Sicilian has edited out Curtius’ list of “chiliarchs”, it is surprising that he fails to mention any such reorganisation. On your own statement, Diodorus never uses “chiliarch” until book 18. Are we to suppose it was a term of Hieronymus? Working from a common source, that is a concern.

Now, to answer your question “So then, Paralus, let us hear your explanation of who all these surplus ‘chiliarchs’ served with?” To do so it’s best to put that question into some context for it comes with overtures of “the Dark Side”…

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 […]rather than the over-complicated theorems of modern commentators […] Do you, for example, subscribe to the lame theory that Curtius ‘must have’ meant pentekosiarchs ? Or perhaps each ‘chiliarchy’ of Hypaspists has an “heir and a spare” ?

Now, all the above language is deliberate and used for effect. That effect is to ridicule and dismiss any such proposition even though it is not in play. This is exactly what Luisa Prandi does when diminishing the importance of Poxy LXXI. 4808. The poser of the question is absolutely certain of his ground and the object is to destroy the counter proposition – not on the evidence – but on rather more histrionic or emotive grounds. That said, I must put myself within the camp of those whose views are “unlikely in the extreme”, “totally implausible”, “rather over-complicated theorems” and “lame” and who see Curtius as having muddled this notice. I do not see that ‘chiliarchs’ are what is actually being discussed. Indeed, I believe that such relatively senior commanders will have been selected by the king sans contest as Diodorus implies. Those below may compete for the next level. After all, in your view, the supposed chiliarch is an arrowhead away from a taxiarchy. Fancy that, a man from the ‘non-coms’, like Philotas, taking over a command the preserve of a noble (though, perhaps Alexander sought this?).

But of course we have “the manuals” and these cannot be ignored. Those who have done so have been brought up short in the past. The tactical manuals – all later Hellenistic productions – say that the Macedonian phalanx was divided into ‘chiliarchies’. This, then, is incontrovertible evidence – when taken with Curtius’ evidence – that Alexander introduced such at Sittakene. Before this reform the troops were organised in lochoi, in your view 512 strong. The “manuals” describe a lochos as a file of 16 and a lochagos as the file leader. Did Alexander have 16 strong lochoi at Gaugamela or did he reduce this command to 16 in Sittakene? Conflation of sources – many, many years apart – is a dangerous game.

On to other matters. You seem confused (as I’ve noted nore than once) over Hephaestions’ Chiliarchy. Your most recent comment:

I was really only referring to the title 'chiliarch' in the military sense of commander of 1,000/chiliarchy in being part of the catalogue of usages of the term. That is the context of the section at [VII.14.10] where it is apparent that the passage deals with succession to the command of Hephaistion's 'chiliarchy' qua Companion Cavalry command.

Whilst I realise you need Hephaestion’s command to be of 1,000 troops for your argument, it’s becoming passingly difficult to keep up with your altering positionts regarding this. You began with:

[Digression: In Alexander's day the term 'chiliarchon' seems to have been used to describe the very influential person who commanded the King's Bodyguard. He first gave it to Hephaistion, described at Arrian VII.14.10 as "chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry." Perdiccas apparently succeeded to this title following Hephaistion's death.

With which I would largely agree and have enlarged upon. You then decided, as your need for demonstrable ‘chiliarchs’ in Alexander’s army necessitated, that this was not so:

...Except the reference I supplied at VII.14.10 where Hephaistion still commands his previous 'half' of the Companion cavalry i.e two Hipparchia of 500 or so, which adds up to a chiliarchy, hence he is referred to as 'Chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry'.

So, which is Hephaestion? The “very influential person who commanded the King's Bodyguard […] described at Arrian VII.14.10 as ‘chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry’” or the Hephaestion who only commands “his previous 'half' of the Companion cavalry i.e two Hipparchia of 500 or so, which adds up to a chiliarchy, hence he is referred to as 'Chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry'”?

[agesilaos]

'chiliarchos' lads, chiliarchon is the accusative the custom is to use the nominative of the source language or to anglicise the commonest endings are -os, -e, -on, -is, ia, which become -oi, -ai, -a, -eis,-iai when plural. But then some words have their own quirks so pais becomes paides rather than pa-eis! If in doubt anglicise, this is not just pedantry, it stops any professional classicist, like Waldemar Heckel or Alexander Meeus, who do look at the site immediately thinking less of us, we should all be able to form nounal endings, though I know that they can become quite slippery after a tot or two or even during long posts (I dread to think of all the solepcismata, - I forgot -ismos, -ismata - I commit); let's aim to keep it all Greek Though i suspect there is alot of French (Good German or Anglo-Saxon) being muttered in this thread!

[Paralus]

Well, and merry Christmas to you too 'sir'!

Hadn't thought I'd done so other than to directly quote any such but I promise to be a good lad from now on. Does this mean I cannot drink my Mt Langi Cliff Edge shiraz today??

Merry Christmas all.

[agesilaos]

Merry Xmas, to you, too! I think it was in a quote; otherwise it would be a hundred lines before dawn or I'll convert you into an English opening batsman! I know it is a bit Victorian schoolmaster but I believe it is owed to those who read our posts to get the Greek/Latin right otherwise we could be fathering a brood of error, herendeth the purple prose.

Season's Greetings

[Paralus]

English opening bat?? Spare me!

I had my shiraz anyway and am now having a second bottle. 'Sir'....