A Hephaistion Quiz!

[Theseus]

I got 14 out of 15. I got #12 wrong about what Abdalonymus was doing when Hephaestion came across him. I thought he was grooming his horse. oh well now I know. That was fun and educational, thanks for the link!

[Paralus]

Hence in the “Vulgate” sources, it appears that Somatophylakes generally means the personal and official Bodyguards of the king and not a regiment of “guards”.

What, then, to make of Diodorus, 17.65.1?

After the king had marched out of Babylon and while he was still on the road, there came to him, sent by Antipater, five hundred Macedonian cavalry and six thousand infantry, six hundred Thracian cavalry and three thousand five hundred Trallians, and from the Peloponnese four thousand infantry and little less than a thousand cavalry.1 From Macedonia also came fifty sons of the king's Friends sent by their fathers to serve as bodyguards.

It would appear the confusion extends to the pages as well. As Heckel observes, the ancient hisorians of Alexander applied the term somatophylakes to the Pages, the agema of the hypaspists and the bodyguard of the "seven".

It amounts to special pleading to read across Arrian’s usage to re-interpret Diodorus’ statement that Hephaistion was chief of the Bodyguards, when there is no reason to disbelieve that the usual Vulgate meaning is intended.

It also seems that Arrian loosely used somatophylakes to refer to the entire corps of the hypaspists and not just one squadron among them. C. Bradford Welles thought this a sufficient reason to discount the possibility that Hephaistion commanded hypaspists at Gaugamela, because Nicanor seems to have commanded the hypaspists there.

I do not think it amounts to "special pleading". The terminology in Arrian is confused. Diodorus claims Hephaestion “commanded” the body guards. I can think of nowhere else that a “commander” of the “seven” is attested. That is not to say that it might not be but I can’t think of it.

It is certainly untrue that the command of a squadron of hypaspists is in any way as significant as command of the Seven (later Eight) Bodyguards. These men became the top staff officers of Alexander’s regime. It is tantamount to Hephaistion having already been Alexander’s deputy at Gaugamela

Nicanor is indeed referred to as being in command of the hypaspists. In exactly the same way that Philotas is in command of the Companion Cavalry. It is Cleitus, though, who is in command of the ile basilike or “Royal” squadron of that cavalry.

Hephaestion, if he is commanding the Agema of the Hypaspists, is commanding a prestigious unit: the king’s foot guard. Judging by Arrian’s claim that some 700 of the agema crossed the Hydaspes with him, it was a sizeable unit as well. This unit, made up of the sons of the Macedonian nobility, was no insignificant command. As I pointed out, Seleucus commands it later in the campaign after Hephaestion is promoted to a commander of the Companion Cavalry. It is not unlikely that he did from horseback.

And yes, it is difficult to see the hypaspists keeping up with their king. They may well have caught up to the melee, indeed they would have to, as it was their remit to keep contact with the king. It is why they are stationed in close proximity and why the gap will have opened at both Gaugamela and Issus as they followed their duty and their king.

The hypaspists were the corps d‘elite of the infantry and the Royal hypaspists were the noble nucleus of that elite. Later, after Alexander’s death, it is well attested that the regular hypaspists – the Argyraspids – scorned or resisted those who attempted to impose their authority upon them as these individuals were in no way Alexander or Philip. They did, though, still respond to the directions of the Argaed house when they took up service under Eumenes’ in the Kings’ names.

[Taphoi]

What, then, to make of Diodorus, 17.65.1?

Actually the Greek is pros ten somatophylakian, which could be translated as “with a view to becoming Bodyguards”, so it is a bit ambiguous what Diodorus means (and recall that Diodorus is summarising Cleitarchus, often rather clumsily). However, this use is anyway not inconsistent with my view that somatophylakes always means personal and official bodyguards of the king in the Vulgate, because we know (e.g. the Pages’ conspiracy) that the Pages did serve as personal bodyguards around Alexander’s tent. I do not say that the word always means a member of the Seven, because it can be used (as here?) in its literal and descriptive sense as well being the official title of the Seven.

Judging by Arrian’s claim that some 700 of the agema crossed the Hydaspes with him, it was a sizeable unit as well.

The entire regiment of the hypaspists was only 3000 strong or less. If Arrian suggests that 700 of the agema were only a detachment, then it looks as though the agema of the hypaspists is the formal title of the entire regiment, in which case Nicanor commanded the unit at Gaugamela and there is no sub-set who were the bodyguards (i.e. Arrian uses the term for all of them).

Conversely, if Hephaistion only commanded a squadron of the hypaspists then he would have reported to Nicanor and would have been clearly junior to a large number of army and naval officers. As commander of the Seven, he would have reported directly to Alexander and nobody else would have outranked him. The fleet (hundreds of ships) is very likely to have had officers ranking above a hypaspist squadron leader within it, so how could Alexander have placed Hephaistion in command of it without making a nonsense of his command structure, if Hephaistion was a mere squadron leader? It would have been like putting Prince Harry in charge of the Ark Royal.

The Bodyguards were not strictly within the military command structure. The king appointed them personally and a military command record was probably not required, whereas general army appointments were discussed with the senior officers (as we know from the Ephemerides). This seems to be how Alexander contrived to make Hephaistion his deputy. He didn’t promote him rapidly up the army command chain. He bypassed it.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

The entire regiment of the hypaspists was only 3000 strong or less. If Arrian suggests that 700 of the agema were only a detachment, then it looks as though the agema of the hypaspists is the formal title of the entire regiment, in which case Nicanor commanded the unit at Gaugamela and there is no sub-set who were the bodyguards (i.e. Arrian uses the term for all of them).

Three thousand, or three chiliarchies, is the minimum. The Argyraspids, the hypaspists of Philip and of Alexander, are numbered at three thousand. The numbers of the native (and Macedonian) hypaspists seem also to be set at three thousand. The agema will have been in addition to this as the Argyraspids, after Alexander’s death, have no agema.

Arrian takes pains to identify the agema of the hypaspists as separate to the hypaspist infantry in 4.30.3. He clearly differentiates the 700 bodyguards from the rest of the “shield bearing” infantry (hypaspists). There appears, in the ancient historians, a tendency to refer (occasionally) to all of those whose task it was to guard the king as “somatophlylake”: the pages; the agema of the hypaspists and the “seven”.

For Hephaestion’s promotion to the seven, this seemingly came after Ptolemy – not son of Lagos – who was one of the seven died leading hypaspists at Halicarnassus (Arrian, 1.22.4). If so, there is nothing strange in that Hephaestion, as member of the seven, also leads the agema of the hypaspists having succeeded him. In which case, there is no need for us to be concerned over his lack seniority with respect to Nicanor or any of the officers of the fleet.

I rather suspect that we’d argue over my birth date.

[Taphoi]

For Hephaestion’s promotion to the seven, this seemingly came after Ptolemy – not son of Lagos – who was one of the seven died leading hypaspists at Halicarnassus (Arrian, 1.22.4). If so, there is nothing strange in that Hephaestion, as member of the seven, also leads the agema of the hypaspists having succeeded him. In which case, there is no need for us to be concerned over his lack seniority with respect to Nicanor or any of the officers of the fleet.

A somewhat anomalous position in the hierarchy of command is that of the Royal bodyguards... Membership was incompatible with any post away from court... It also seems to have been incompatible with commands in the army. In the early years of the reign there is no known instance of a bodyguard holding a senior commission; and, when Ptolemy son of Seleucus took over command of a phalanx battalion he ceased to hold the title of bodyguard.

I feel it's a bit disloyal for you publicly to attack the views of your expert compatriot in this shameless fashion Paralus. But I guess it's between you and your conscience

Btw. in the Julian Calendar, which we still use for ancient dates, your birthday is a couple of weeks earlier than you think it is

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I think I'm involved in a debate that I don't entirely understand and I'm feeling rather stupid right now, but – you know me – I just have to ask the questions that bug me. First Taphoi said this:

Conversely, if Hephaistion only commanded a squadron of the hypaspists then he would have reported to Nicanor and would have been clearly junior to a large number of army and naval officers. As commander of the Seven, he would have reported directly to Alexander and nobody else would have outranked him. The fleet (hundreds of ships) is very likely to have had officers ranking above a hypaspist squadron leader within it, so how could Alexander have placed Hephaistion in command of it without making a nonsense of his command structure, if Hephaistion was a mere squadron leader? It would have been like putting Prince Harry in charge of the Ark Royal.
The Bodyguards were not strictly within the military command structure. The king appointed them personally and a military command record was probably not required, whereas general army appointments were discussed with the senior officers (as we know from the Ephemerides). This seems to be how Alexander contrived to make Hephaistion his deputy. He didn’t promote him rapidly up the army command chain. He bypassed it.

And then quoted Bosworth as saying:

A somewhat anomalous position in the hierarchy of command is that of the Royal bodyguards... Membership was incompatible with any post away from court... It also seems to have been incompatible with commands in the army. In the early years of the reign there is no known instance of a bodyguard holding a senior commission; and, when Ptolemy son of Seleucus took over command of a phalanx battalion he ceased to hold the title of bodyguard.

So if being a bodyguard meant that a military command record was probably not required and membership seems to have been incompatible with commands in the army, then why would this preclude Hephaistion commanding an infantry division at Gaugamela?

If this is a "Duh!" question, everyone feel free to ignore me. Am having a bit of a bad weekend and using Pothos as a distraction. I may not be thinking straight. (My excuse anyway. )

Best regards,

[marcus]

So if being a bodyguard meant that a military command record was probably not required and membership seems to have been incompatible with commands in the army, then why would this preclude Hephaistion commanding an infantry division at Gaugamela?

I have to confess that I'm rather losing track of this thread, too. But, on the basis of what Taphoi wrote (quoting Bosworth), if Hephaistion were a somatophylax (one of the Seven), then he could not have held another command. So the argument would be that, if he were commanding an ile of hetairoi, or whatever, then he cannot have been a somatophylax.

ATB

[amyntoros]

I have to confess that I'm rather losing track of this thread, too. But, on the basis of what Taphoi wrote (quoting Bosworth), if Hephaistion were a somatophylax (one of the Seven), then he could not have held another command. So the argument would be that, if he were commanding an ile of hetairoi, or whatever, then he cannot have been a somatophylax.

Hmm, I wondered if that were the case. It leads me to some more questions, however. Who were the other six at that time? And doesn't this also mean that when Hephaistion was given different military commands at a later date he must no longer have been a somatophylax? If he had been one of the "seven" at Gaugamela, that is. And if he wasn't one of the seven at Gaugamela, then he could have been leading infantry, couldn't he?

I'm totally lost by the way. Can't even remember offhand who is arguing that Hephaiston was one of the somatophylax at Gaugamela and who says he wasn't. My head is still stuck on this whole infantry versus cavalry thing.

Best regards,

[Callisto]

Well, I would like to see some examples of Amyntor from Macedon prior to Alexander. Not being huffy, but would like to see them. And perhaps the exact wording of the SEG 31.636 and it's context? Please. I have many of them online bookmarked, but not that one.

So your interpretation of the Kolophon inscription differs, then? Obviously it does, but why do you feel the other interpretation is wrong? Again, I just want to know.

As for Hephaistion, I do think that the fact that Hephaistos is not known to be venerated to any degree in Macedonia, but certainly elsewhere from Lycia to Athens is indicative of a heritage not Macedonian. Though I suppose that perhaps Amyntor had a special time on Samthrace and was inspired to name a son after Hephaistos or in honour of him.

Which reminds me, can anyone recommend a good book on the etymology of Greek names? An extensive one. For example though we know her as Sappho, she might have thought of herself as Psappha. I would appreciate this more than you can know.

SEG 31.636

Geron, son of Epikydeos, ca. 400-350 BC

http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptio ... 6end%3D112

I dont imply anything about the inscription from Kolophon. Geron was used also as a personal name in ancient Greece and according to epigraphies we have two Macedonians in different periods carrying this name.

As you write Hephaistos is not known to be venerated to any degree in Macedonia but again i am a bit skeptic about this argument being indicative of a non-Macedonian origin of the name. Hermes is also absent from Macedonia but we still find Macedonian names like Hermolaos having 'Hermes' as root.

As for the name Hephaistion itself, its possibly in Macedonian language to have had the pronouncement of He-Bais-ti-on where "Ph" is pronounced in the Macedonian dialectal form as "B". (ie. the name Philistiche becomes Bilistiche)

I will provide you a small list with books i am aware about etymology of greek names and especially focused in ancient Macedonia.

1. Helmut Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, Munich, 1926

2. Otto Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum, Göttingen 1906

3. Argyro Tataki, Macedonians Abroad: a Contribution to the Prosopography of Ancient Macedonia. Athens 1998

I have read the first two in German but i am not aware if they are translated in English. However if you have access to a University you will surely find them there. The third one can be found in the following link.

http://www.eie.gr/editions/editions-iera-en.html

[marcus]

Hmm, I wondered if that were the case.

Well, it would appear to be so. I can't remember all the evidence that Bosworth put forward for this, but it appears in other books and articles as well; and, when you look at the careers of the named somatophylakes, it does appear that they didn't hold other military commands while they were members of the Seven.

Which does make perfect sense because they are supposed to be the king's bodyguard - if they are off commanding other troops, then they can't remain close to the king and do their job.

Who were the other six at that time?

It's OK, I have a list somewhere - can't be sure where, however, so it might take me a while to find it. But I do have it, carefully put together from close reading of Arrian ...

ATB

[Paralus]

Which does make perfect sense because they are supposed to be the king's bodyguard - if they are off commanding other troops, then they can't remain close to the king and do their job.

Precisely the job of the agema of the hypaspists; not to say the rest of them as well. It is why they are stationed with the companion cavalry and why they are attested with him on foot. At Issus they are described as such as Arrian rolls over the line during the assembly manoeuvres: the hypaspists abut the companion cavalry even though Alexander extends his line further right. Hephaestion, if he were somatophylax at the time and commanding the agema from horseback, will still have been discharging the remit of somatophylax.

The others were likely on horse.

I feel it's a bit disloyal for you publicly to attack the views of your expert compatriot in this shameless fashion Paralus. But I guess it's between you and your conscience.

We do not know enough – nor do we have enough good information – to be dogmatic. I have disagreed with AB Bosworth, "my expert compatriot", before – my conscience is fine. Though, I don’t know that I am disagreeing. I don’t see a problem with Hephaestion – as a bodyguard – commanding the king’s “foot bodyguards”, adjacent to the king, at Gaugamela.

My opinion though, not necessarily that of my expert compatriot.

[Fiona]

Okay, an entirely personal observation/question here from a person operating more from logic than from extensive knowledge of the military. (All authorities on military matters feel free to jump in. ) Why is it difficult to see? Does anyone else think it possible that because he was a favorite that Alexander would have had the common sense to wait until Hephaistion proved himself in battle before promoting him to an even higher position? I mean, Hephaistion isn't mentioned as being involved in any warfare before Gaugamela. We simply don't know what command position he may have held previously. There's this assumption that because he was so close to Alexander he must have been given one of the highest military positions from the start. I don't know if this holds true. Why could he not have been what you seem to consider a lowly squadron leader of the hypaspists at Gaugamela (Craterus, another favorite, is first recorded as being a commander of a battalion of pezhetairoi) and then promoted after being wounded in the battle? He was, as we know, promoted again at a later date. Personally, I think it unlikely that Alexander would have given a highest military position at the beginning of the campaign to an unproven favorite because it would not have sat well with the others. As it stands Hephaistion remained unpopular with the little clique of Craterus and Eumenes even after proving his worth.

Best regards,

I've been following this thread with great interest, and like you, I wouldn't claim to be any great expert on military ranks, but I rather think the assumption that Alexander would have given Hephaistion a high rank from the start is one that Heckel was trying to demolish, by arguing in favour of his being in command of hypaspists. I don't know why that should seem more lowly, but there does seem to be this pecking order in military thinking, that cavalry in general outrank infantry. A class thing, perhaps.
Taphoi's impeccable arguments that this was not the case, however, don't imply, IMHO, that Hephaistion had been over-promoted in any way. I think you're absolutely right that Alexander would not have been daft enough to do that. Isn't it rather that as one of the Somatophylakes, he would have held a high rank, but not a high command, in that he was not in charge of, or responsible for, large quantities of other men? As one of the few specially charged with guarding Alexander in battle, he was well-qualified, as a close friend. And then he would have gone on to achieve other commands later, earned on merit, when the time was right.

Fiona

[Paralus]

Which does make perfect sense because they are supposed to be the king's bodyguard - if they are off commanding other troops, then they can't remain close to the king and do their job.

Precisely the job of the agema of the hypaspists; not to say the rest of them as well. It is why they are stationed with the companion cavalry and why they are attested with him on foot. At Issus they are described as such as Arrian rolls over the line during the assembly manoeuvres: the hypaspists abut the companion cavalry even though Alexander extends his line further right. Hephaestion, if he were somatophylax at the time of Guagamela and commanding the agema from horseback, will still have been discharging the remit of somatophylax.

The others were likely on horse.

I feel it's a bit disloyal for you publicly to attack the views of your expert compatriot in this shameless fashion Paralus. But I guess it's between you and your conscience.

We do not know enough – nor do we have enough good information – to be dogmatic. I have disagreed with AB Bosworth, "my expert compatriot", before – my conscience is fine. Though, I don’t know that I am disagreeing. I don’t see a problem with Hephaestion – as a bodyguard – commanding the king’s “foot bodyguards”, adjacent to the king, at Gaugamela.

My opinion though, not necessarily that of my expert compatriot.

[Paralus]

An observation on Gaugamela. The battle line is one of the few hard and fast established facts. Arrian (3.11.1ff) writes up the infantry line to Alexander's immediate left as follows:

Of the phalanx of Macedonian infantry, nearest to the cavalry had been posted first the select corps of shield-bearing guards, and then the rest of the shield-bearing guards, under the command of Nicanor, son of Parmenio. Next to these was the brigade of Coenus, son of Polemocrates; after these that of Perdiccas, son of Orontes; then that of Meleager, son of Neoptolemus; then that of Polysperchon, son of Simmias; and last that of Amyntas, son of Andromenes, under the command of Simmias, because Amyntas had been despatched to Macedonia to levy an army. The brigade of Craterus, son of Alexander, held the left end of the Macedonian phalanx, and this general commanded the left wing of the infantry.

Thus it becomes clear that of the reported injured, all are on the right side of the field. Menidas is with the “mercenary cavalry” in the van on the right. Indeed he is instructed to prevent the Persian attempted encirclement. Hephaestion is, in Heckel's opinion (with which I tend to agree), on horse and commanding the Royal Hypaspists and Coenus the first battalion of the phalanx.

I have always had the belief that Alexander’s precipitous headlong “chase of the fleeing Darius” is a narrative tool to discredit Parmenio (whose lack of courage and call for help prevents the valiant Alexander from catching his foe). More importantly, any reading of the battle, as Alexander evidently planned it, will demonstrate that the left was always going to be in a position of holding its ground against a furious assault. Too, the drift forward and right by Alexander was always going to take his hypaspists and – a fortiori – his infantry with him. A commander of the calibre of Alexander was unlikely to leave his army pinned down whilst he engaged in a precipitous chase. It is far more likely that he was already wheeling left – as at Issus – to seal the day.

That said, there is every chance that the life and death struggle that Arrian describes happened in the centre and not on the Macedonian left. The cavalry that Alexander engaged were hardly those that had broken through to the Macedonian camp. In this scenario it is more understandable that Coenus was indeed involved (again, he will have commanded on horseback).

Having penned his description of this fierce action, Arrian then tell us that Alexander was victorious again and that such Persians who could took off to save themselves. He then notes (3.15.3):

Alexander was now on the point of engaging the Persian right; but his help was not needed, as in this sector the Thessalian cavalry had fought hardly less magnificently that Alexander.

It is therefore clear that Alexander had not engaged the Persian right. The Thessalians took care of that “sector”. I’d argue that Alexander has engaged in a swing to the left after scattering the Persian left and left of centre and engaged the cavalry units of the centre part of the field who were – apparently – trying to get away. These cannot be those Persians of the left as Arrian clearly tells us they were unaware of the rout of the right and, more to the point, were in the process of delivering “a flank attack on Parmenio”.

If this is correct, then it is easier to understand that the hypaspist corps – including the agema – may well have been involved at some stage in this contact. Coenus as well.

Unrelated to this thread, but of relevance to something I am researching, the hypaspist corps is evidently armed in the fashion of the pezhetairoi. Arrian notes (3.14.3) that when Alexander straightens his advance and attacks, he does so “with his Companions and all the heavy infantry in this sector of the field”. Which would be the hypaspists and at least Coenus’ battalion.

[Paralus]

It is certainly untrue that the command of a squadron of hypaspists is in any way as significant as command of the Seven (later Eight) Bodyguards.

Assuming such a command existed, who suggested such?

It is also in speaking of Hephaistion's wound at Gaugamela that Diodorus 17.61.3 states that Hephaistion was the commander of the Bodyguards. There is simply no other explanation than that this meant the Seven since it must have been a cavalry unit and since it cannot have been the Royal Squadron of the Companion Cavalry, since that was commanded by Cleitus the Black at Gaugamela.

Are you suggesting that the “Seven” were a separate cavalry unit? They – to my knowledge – are not ever attested as such. Arrian lists all the commanders of the cavalry squadrons on the right in this battle; Hephaestion’s name is notable by its absence. Although he does not bother to go down below squadron level, it might be thought that he would indicate command of said unit by the later injured “Hephaestion himself" Again, I can think of nowhere that any of the sources define the “Seven” as a cavalry troop with a commander.

That Hephaestion may have replaced Ptolemy in the “Seven”, after Halicarnassus is quite possible. That he also commanded the agema of the hypaspists at the same time (at Gaugamela) is also quite possible.

I would hesitate to claim, on the available evidence, that there simply is no other explanation though.