Shield Bearer uniform

[agesilaos]

I have read Heckel's paper and have the book, I think i found his suggestions a tad too organised for a Macedonia without a set constitution but on the right lines and certainly sustainable as an argument, I will re-read both, and Miln's papers too, probably next week before pen hits paper...there is another Test and I don'r recover like I used to

I shall also start a new thread,since this is much broader than the uniform issue and I'll have to post all the source refs and quotes (bi-lingually) and try to remember the names of a few Wallaby players rather than garble a random selection of syllables! Strewth, it's not even Easter and I'm making another bl**dy cross!

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

There was also a corps named the foot agema or agema of the hypaspists (also referred to by Arrian as "somatophylakes"). The latter, as Heckel has shown, were comprised of the sons of the nobility who'd completed service in the paides basilikoi. Another stage in his "Makedonian Cursus Honorum" .

....and....

The hypaspists were selected from amongst all the Macedonians; the agema was the purview of the young nobility progressing from the paides basilikoi.
I should clearly state that I agree with Heckel's notion that the agema consisted of the sons of the nobility. These kids went through their "mock servitude" in a Makedonian version of the Spartan agoge.They are the 18-29 year olds of the Spartan system yet to be "full citizens". Young, vigorous troops, raised at court, in flower of their manhood and the foot guard of the king. And it is this that is so serious when it comes to the "conspiracy of the pages". These are the next generation of the agema of the hypaspists.

That the ‘Agema’ consisted solely of the sons of the nobility I very much doubt, Heckel notwithstanding.
Firstly, the hypaspists in function, though not yet in name, are clearly present in 358 in Philip's victory over Bardylis, for Diodorus XVI.4.5 relates that in the battle Philip commanded the right wing, "which consisted of the flower of the Macedonians serving under him." This was the traditional location of the hypaspists under Alexander and corresponds to Theopompus' description of them as “picked men out of all the Macedonians, the tallest and the strongest. . ." (FGrHist 115 F-348). At this time probably only the Agema, the later royal battalion of Alexander's hypaspists, existed; perhaps a single ‘lochos’ some 500 strong in the beginning. The corps grows along with the Macedonian army as a whole, what one would expect of an elite. Note that neither Diodorus nor Theopompus tells us that they were ‘noble,’ but rather men from all the Macedonians picked for size and strength, the real ‘pick’ of all the army, which is what you want in an elite unit, not limited by being drawn from a much smaller pool of ‘noble’ candidates.
Secondly, the number of ‘paides basilikoi’ is nowhere near enough to support an Agema of at least 500, and ultimately 1,000 strong. The ‘paides’ seem to have numbered tens rather than hundreds – we hear of 50 being sent to Alexander – and whilst modern authors guess at the total, the largest estimate I have seen is ‘not more than 200’. Even then, given the nature of the ‘paides’ training and its emphasis on horses, it is apparent that they generally served as ‘hetairoi’ cavalry on reaching adulthood – which also served to confirm their nobility. Heckel’s examples in his ‘cursus honorum’ paper simply show that SOME nobles could later serve as OFFICERS in the Agema. It would be highly unusual, not to mention humiliating, for a Macedonian noble to serve as a ‘rank and file’ guarding a door, while their juniors, ‘paides/teenage boys’ had access to the inner sanctum. Therefore even if there were sufficient numbers of ‘paides’ to keep the Agema up to strength, as well as the Companions, it would simply be socially unacceptable – amounting to serious ‘demotion’ - to serve as a 'ranker'.

For all these reasons, I find it highly unlikely that the ‘rank-and-file’ of the Agema were nobles who had completed training as ‘paides’. Rather, they supplied the Officers, especially the senior ones, while the rank-and-file were as Theopompus says: "“picked men out of all the Macedonians, the tallest and the strongest. . ." an altogether different basis for selection.

Paralus wrote:

I can't see that Xenophon is using the word agema in anything like that sense in both attestations. Nor do I think it is used to denote the "leading unit" in any strict sense. In both passages he uses several words to denote what is translated as "leader". At 11.9 he writes "True, the leader (arkhōn) is then on the left..." going on to say "If, however, it seems better for any reason that the leader (hēgemona) should be on the right wing, the left wing wheels, and the army counter-marches by ranks until the leader (agēma is on the right". The words arkhon, hegemon and agema are used interchangeably for what is translated as "leader". Confirmation of this comes in the second instance. Here Xenophon says "When the King leads (hēgētai), provided that no enemy appears..." and later "But if ever they think there will be fighting, he takes the lead (labōn to agēma) of the first regiment (tēs prōtēs moras). Here labon to agema is "takes the lead" and, crucially, tes ptotes moras refers to the first or lead regiment. Agema is not used to indicate the first or select regiment to my view. That comes under the Macedonians who seem to have accorded it its "technical" rather than general meaning.

To begin with,I cannot agree that the three words, archon, hegemon and agema are synonymous.

“Arkhon” means a ruler or commander, and in that sense Xenophon frequently uses the word to refer to Spartan Kings, who were of course both.

“Hegemon” is the more generic ‘leader’, literally ‘one who leads’. C.f. singular “agemon”. (see LSJ)

“Agema”, then is something else, not singular leader ( agemon). Nor does the passage make sense with this meaning. The leader ‘takes the leader’ ? ( using Paralus’definition ). Readers will be aware that Lexicons frequently ‘guess’ the meaning of a word from its context, particularly technical terms, and the LSJ defines “agema” as ‘anything led, a division or corps’ based on these two usages that Paralus refers to, but this is clearly not quite right either. It is clear that if agemon means a single leader then agema must refer to a ‘leading group’, or vanguard, or leading sub-unit of a larger unit, whether a ‘mora’ or the whole phalanx/army. Indeed, this meaning of ‘leading contingent’ was suggested inter alia by a Professor Page, and accepted by Anderson ( see note p.337) in “Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon”. Furthermore the passage usually translated as “having wheeled the Agema to the flank, they countermarch the phalanx” makes no sense either if an individual is being referred to, but makes perfect sense if it is ‘the leading sub-unit’ which wheels and is followed by the rest of the phalanx in the counter-march. ( see for example Lazenby “The Spartan Army” P.11).
It is fair to say that this meaning is now, and for the last 40 years or so, been accepted as correct. Indeed we find that previously this was accepted by Paralus also :

Paralus wrote ( Alexander as Gay Icon thread; Mar 3 2010)
“Agema” is used by Xenophon (Lac. Pol. 13.6) in describing the “lead” element or “division” of the Lacedaemonian phalanx led by the king.

And of course, this meaning leads naturally to the Macedonian usage, where 'The Kings Guard' naturally led on the march and took the place of honour on the right of the line exactly like the Spartan usage ( leading sub-unit within the leading Mora), thus constituting the Macedonian "Agema" ( leading unit within the Hypaspists), hence the word's meaning became a synonym; leading unit/Inner Guard.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

Those who claim the hypaspists were retired at Opis due to old age making them no longer fit for duty have a difficult time reconciling their latter campaigning with that image. Mind you, it might also be remembered that Craterus' "old crocks" retired directly into battle against the Greeks and then many came back to Asia in the invasion of 320.

I think this fit for duty/not fit for duty is rather too ‘black and white’ a definition. I think we would agree that whilst perhaps considered no longer fully fit , those older troops, and injured or ill men, could still serve in some capacity, and be capable of combat - we have plenty of examples, after all.
I have postulated elsewhere that the fact that Alexander took six taxeis into Asia in total, and left 12,000 infantry with Antipater implies a 2,000 man ‘taxis’ – additional to the arguments of Ueda-Sarson. I would suggest that like the armies of Greek poleis, the ‘hoplites’ of the Macedonian army were liable for service from late teens to late fifties or sixty years old, and like them the twenty something to forty somethings provided the ‘field army’ – the veterans that went with Alexander – whilst youngest and oldest provided a ‘Home Guard’ that stayed behind with Antipater. This was perfectly in accordance with universal Greek practice. ( I shall set this out further on Agesilaos’ new thread).
Note that such a ‘Home Guard’ was on occasion expected to actively serve, and we have examples such as the Athenian ‘Home Guard’ winning a battle against a ‘field army’! ( Cimolia, 458 BC, where Myronides, in his sixties beat Corinth: Diodorus and Thucydides). There are also several Macedonian examples, such as Craterus' veterans, and if my view of Antipater's forces is correct, his army also.

Therefore grizzled old soldiers could and did fight, even if considered generally too old for the rigours of field campaigning, though like the Athenians they could do so if necessity called for it. Thus men who would expect to be ‘semi-retired’ by age or ill-health, such as the Argyraspides or Craterus’ veterans were still experienced fighting troops, who if no longer “in their prime” were still well able to fight.

The men who returned with Craterus, who likely included amongst the Argyraspides veteran rank-and-file Agema troops, ( see earlier post) would have expected to semi-retire to the ‘Home Guard’, and be replaced by a constant trickle of youngsters, emerging from training.
This was the normal cycle, and what Alexander proposed to do at Opis, when the tensions in the army broke out.

Paralus wrote:

Yet, after Craterus' departure, Alexander is found twice taking "half the hypaspists" with him (Arr. 6.21.3; 22.1). Antigenes probably did not command the Argyraspids at this point (where for art thou Neoptolemus?) and, unless Alexander formed an entirely new hypaspists corps about which we are not informed, they were not sent home (as the hypaspists are still with the king). Just what Antigenes' "battalion" was I can't guess. Like many things, this is not as clear as one might like things to be.

To me, this clearly suggests that it was not the whole of the Hypaspists who were dismissed, rather that Arrian was right that it was the elderly and unfit only who departed with Craterus. The obvious thing to do would have been to bring them back up to strength, or perhaps a lesser total ( 2,000?) by recruiting and promoting from the general phalanx, and since none of these would have possessed ‘Silver Shields’, as the originals would have done, the nickname stays with the originals and the 'new' Royal Guard revert to their former title of ‘Hypaspists’.

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote:

I can't see that Xenophon is using the word agema in anything like that sense in both attestations. Nor do I think it is used to denote the "leading unit" in any strict sense. In both passages he uses several words to denote what is translated as "leader". At 11.9 he writes "True, the leader (arkhōn) is then on the left..." going on to say "If, however, it seems better for any reason that the leader (hēgemona) should be on the right wing, the left wing wheels, and the army counter-marches by ranks until the leader (agēma is on the right". The words arkhon, hegemon and agema are used interchangeably for what is translated as "leader". Confirmation of this comes in the second instance. Here Xenophon says "When the King leads (hēgētai), provided that no enemy appears..." and later "But if ever they think there will be fighting, he takes the lead (labōn to agēma) of the first regiment (tēs prōtēs moras). Here labon to agema is "takes the lead" and, crucially, tes ptotes moras refers to the first or lead regiment. Agema is not used to indicate the first or select regiment to my view. That comes under the Macedonians who seem to have accorded it its "technical" rather than general meaning.

To begin with,I cannot agree that the three words, archon, hegemon and agema are synonymous.

Only that they are in the above translation. That "agema" in the first passage - "the army counter-marches by ranks until the leader (agēma) is on the right" - relates to a lead unit is not unlikely. Archon can indeed refer to the king although it is likely translated as "leader" here because the the second passage under consideration deals with the honours bestowed upon the king by Lycurgus. In this entire passage the Spartan king is not once denoted as "archon"; he is one or another variation of "basileus" - twelve of twelve usages. If accepted, the passage becomes "... the king is then on the left. If, however, it seems better for any reason that the leader (hēgemona) should be on the right wing, the left wing wheels, and the army counter-marches by ranks until the lead unit..."

But it is no so simple as that...

Nor does the passage make sense with this meaning. The leader ‘takes the leader’ ? ( using Paralus’definition ). Readers will be aware that Lexicons frequently ‘guess’ the meaning of a word from its context, particularly technical terms, and the LSJ defines “agema” as ‘anything led, a division or corps’ based on these two usages that Paralus refers to, but this is clearly not quite right either.

The second passage says "when the king leads (hēgētai basileus)" and "he takes the lead of the first regiment and wheels to the right". Now the first is yet another derivative of hegemon. The second is far different. Here he "takes the lead" / labōn to agēma and the first regiment is tēs prōtēs moras or "that first regiment" (Spartan mora). I'm assuming you're seeing this as he takes the agema and wheels the first mora to the right? This is possible as is he takes the lead of the first regiment.

I still do not see this as agema being used in any technical sense. That every "division" or mora has a leading unit on the march is obvious. That this lead unit or agema of the the first mora is an elite unit, meaning the word is used technically as did the Macedonians, I cannot see. Rather it is simply the unit in the van.

On the hypaspists and the agema of the hypspists, I shall have to reply at a later stage. Macedonian nobles indeed fought on foot as did their king (attestations are clear for both Philip and Alexander). What's good enough for the king is just as good for his companions. We are not well informed about the pages. The only source attestation I can call to mind of them fighting was in Bactria where they sallied forth on horse with the "sick and wounded". This is to be expected. Teenagers are hardly to thought of fighting on foot in full armour as do adults. That every mention of a member of the agema is of an officer is not correct either. Peucestas is mentioned only as a hypaspist by Diodorus - not an officer. Lysimachus' brother Philip is described as running to keep up with the king and his brother by Curtius (8.2.34-36). He is on foot and wearing a cuirass and carrying weapons. He is very unlikely to have been a page and is almost certainly a member of the agema. He is not an officer.

Time for bed.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

“Only that they are in the above translation. That "agema" in the first passage - "the army counter-marches by ranks until the leader (agēma) is on the right" - relates to a lead unit is not unlikely. Archon can indeed refer to the king although it is likely translated as "leader" here because the the second passage under consideration deals with the honours bestowed upon the king by Lycurgus. In this entire passage the Spartan king is not once denoted as "archon"; he is one or another variation of "basileus" - twelve of twelve usages. If accepted, the passage becomes "... the king is then on the left. If, however, it seems better for any reason that the leader (hēgemona) should be on the right wing, the left wing wheels, and the army counter-marches by ranks until the lead unit..."

In the above context, for the avoidance of doubt, I would translate as follows :
‘Basileus’ : the King in his capacity as King
‘archon’ : the King in his capacity as Commander of the army (but also could describe another commander – see a few lines later at XIII.7.5 for example where Xen. Refers to ‘commanding officers/archons’.)
‘hegemon’ : the Leader ( literally)
‘agema’ : the leading sub-unit of a formation/body of troops. Here the leading sub-unit of the first Mora and hence the whole phalanx/army.

In the first passage, in order to counter-march the ranks, it is necessarily the leftmost sub-unit which does this – “the agema wheels to the wing ( agema epi keras) and the army counter-marches by ranks”. Here agema = ‘leader’ or ‘the lead’ simply makes no sense. What is being described is the left end-most sub- unit wheeling right through 90 degrees, and marching along the front of the phalanx until it becomes the right-most unit, and is followed by each sub-unit in turn. Think of a military band counter-marching. Necessarily, it is a sub-unit that must do this, in order to retain the depth of the formation/phalanx.....[note that it is the shielded side that is presented to the enemy. Whilst this drill was doubtless practised, it is highly unlikely to have been used in battle, and we never hear of it.]

It is easier to grasp agema as ‘leading sub-unit’, when it is appreciated that all Greek hoplite drill ( and Macedonian too for that matter) was of the ‘follow-the-leader’ variety, both in files, and sub-units as described both in Xenophon, and the Hellenistic manual(s). The role of the agema as vanguard sub-unit was of vital technical importance to the positioning of the army/phalanx as a whole. ( see further below regarding ‘technical’)

“The second passage says "when the king leads (hēgētai basileus)" and "he takes the lead of the first regiment and wheels to the right". Now the first is yet another derivative of hegemon. The second is far different. Here he "takes the lead" / labōn to agēma and the first regiment is tēs prōtēs moras or "that first regiment" (Spartan mora). I'm assuming you're seeing this as he takes the agema and wheels the first mora to the right? This is possible as is he takes the lead of the first regiment”

Whilst I hesitate to debate the meaning of ancient Greek with those such as your good self, and the Loeb translation by Marchant (1925), who have a far better grasp of the ancient Greek language than me, I very much doubt that “takes the lead” is the correct translation. To begin with, ‘Agema’ is a noun according to the LSJ, and “the lead” is not one of the meanings it offers. Literally, we have “...he takes/grasps the agema of the first Brigade/Division [Mora] and wheels it to the right/spear side [epi doru], until he is between two Brigades/Divisions/Morai and two Colonels/Polemarchs.” The purpose of the manoeuvre is to remove the King from being vulnerable on the extreme right of the line/phalanx. He almost certainly does not move a whole ‘Mora/Brigade’ – one sixth of the army, over 1,000 strong – to do this. This would be rather complex to achieve drill-wise, involving the second ‘Mora’ to open up a gap exactly the size of the unit between itself and the third Mora, and incidently causing affront to the first ‘Mora’ by removing it from its rightful place of honour on the right of the line. Note that it is not the First Mora which ends up between two Morai, but “he” [the King]
On the other hand, if we take agema to mean ‘leading sub-unit’, then the King simply takes it, perhaps an enomotia strong ( 30-40 men), and moves it between the first and second Morai, leaving the first Mora in its regular place in the battle-line/phalanx. This is in fact a similar manoeuvre to the first description, save that it appears it is the agema/leading sub-unit alone which moves, and succeeding sub-units don’t follow.

“I still do not see this as agema being used in any technical sense. That every "division" or mora has a leading unit on the march is obvious. That this lead unit or agema of the the first mora is an elite unit, meaning the word is used technically as did the Macedonians, I cannot see. Rather it is simply the unit in the van.”

I don’t think every ‘division’/mora has an Agema ( unless it is detached). That does not seem to be the way it is used ( though admittedly only from these two examples). Rather one gets the sense that there was only one agema in a given army/phalanx. This ‘leading sub-unit’ had an important technical function, for its manoeuvres and positioning dictated that of the whole phalanx/army. We seem to be using the word ‘technical’ in opposing senses, for whilst the Macedonian Agema seems to have performed this technical vanguard function of the army, and also the Hypaspists as these grew; as indicated earlier, the word later became synonymous with ‘King’s Personal Bodyguard’, and thus ‘leading unit’ in the sense of best, corps d’elite, just as in English. In the Spartan case, I agree it likely had the more technical sense of ‘vanguard/leading sub-unit’ rather than corps d’elite, but even so “those about the King” included the King’s mess-mates, perioikoi volunteers, and friends, seers doctors etc. [X XIII.7].
Perhaps ‘socially distinguished men’ rather than ‘corps d’elite’ is a better description of the Spartan Agema, whilst the Macedonian Agema, especially if it was drawn from “the tallest and strongest “ of ALL the Macedonians rather than just nobles, as we are told by Theopompus, was a true ‘corps d’elite’. Some confirmation that this selection on the basis of brawn rather than birth for the rank and file comes from the famous feast description:
[Athenaeus (12,539 e), Aelian (VH 9,3) and Polyaenus (Strateg. 4,3,24) 7.]
“ First, standing inside around the tent came 500 Persian Melophoroi, then an equal number of archers (as Polyaenus; according to Athenaeus and Aelian there were 1,000 archers), and standing in front of these were 500 argyraspids of outstanding physical stature.”

“Macedonian nobles indeed fought on foot as did their king (attestations are clear for both Philip and Alexander).”

I never said they didn’t! Indeed further evidence for this is provided by the hoplite panoplies, including argive aspides, excavated from the Philip tomb and others. I’ll put this down to tiredness at bedtime rather than the raising of a ‘straw man’ argument....

“That every mention of a member of the agema is of an officer is not correct either.”

I didn’t say this either ! But I’d be hard put to think of an example of someone referred to in our sources who is unmistakenly a lowly hypaspist ranker– for it is the deeds of the “great and good” that fill the histories.

“Peucestas is mentioned only as a hypaspist by Diodorus - not an officer. Lysimachus' brother Philip is described as running to keep up with the king and his brother by Curtius (8.2.34-36). He is on foot and wearing a cuirass and carrying weapons. He is very unlikely to have been a page and is almost certainly a member of the agema. He is not an officer.”

One cannot categorically say whether either is an officer or not, for we are simply not told in either case.It is not even certain that Peucestas was a member of the corps of ‘Hypaspists’, for Diodorus scarcely uses the word in its technical sense ( being rather weak on Macedonian military terminology), and he may be using the word here in its literal sense of ‘shieldbearer’, for he is describing Peucestas being honoured by carrying the ‘sacred shield of Ilium’ before Alexander. But let us assume that he was a member of the Agema, even then the honour is hardly likely to be bestowed on a lowly ranker – even if we allow the assumption that they are all of noble birth, for there would be plenty ahead of such a person in seniority etc for the honour. Most scholars, going back to Berve describe him as “an Officer of Hypaspists”. ( we are not actually told his rank at the time). He would go on to save Alexander’s life in India. Peucestas then went on to the greatest honours possible – one of the trierarchs on the Hydaspes, only granted to those close to Alexander, Satrap of Persis, and commander of 20,000 Persians at Babylon as Alexander was dying. He also had the honour of being the eighth ‘somatophylax’! Napoleon once famously referred to every ‘grognard’/ranker potentially having a Marshal’s baton in his rucksack, but even when revolutionary France had largely cleared away the nobility, it was a very rare achievement. Impossible for a lowly ‘ranker’ even of noble blood to rise so high at Alexander’s hierarchical court !
Rather, it seems far more likely that he was a member of one of the highest noble families, hence far more likely to be an officer than lowly 'ranker', assuming he was actually a member of the Hypaspists/Agema.

As for Philip, the anecdote about his run is likely apocryphal, like that of Pheidippides who also supposedly died after an epic run. At all events, as Curtius tells it, he was “one of the young nobles [nobiles iuvenes] who were accustomed to attend” ( Alexander) – a plain reference to him being a ‘paide’ - having “just arrived at manhood”[primum adultus et], and in any event we are not told his rank either.....

No evidence then ( so far at least) for footsloggers in the Agema all being of noble blood....

[Paralus]

“Macedonian nobles indeed fought on foot as did their king (attestations are clear for both Philip and Alexander).”

I never said they didn’t! Indeed further evidence for this is provided by the hoplite panoplies, including argive aspides, excavated from the Philip tomb and others. I’ll put this down to tiredness at bedtime rather than the raising of a ‘straw man’ argument....

I read that into the below...

Even then, given the nature of the ‘paides’ training and its emphasis on horses, it is apparent that they generally served as ‘hetairoi’ cavalry on reaching adulthood – which also served to confirm their nobility. Heckel’s examples in his ‘cursus honorum’ paper simply show that SOME nobles could later serve as OFFICERS in the Agema. It would be highly unusual, not to mention humiliating, for a Macedonian noble to serve as a ‘rank and file’ guarding a door, while their juniors, ‘paides/teenage boys’ had access to the inner sanctum. Therefore even if there were sufficient numbers of ‘paides’ to keep the Agema up to strength, as well as the Companions, it would simply be socially unacceptable – amounting to serious ‘demotion’ - to serve as a 'ranker'.

There two major problems with that rationale. The first is that - as Heckel states - there is no evidence to be found for members of the paides progressing immediately from page to Companion cavalry at the age of eighteen or so. What evidence there is (patchy though it is) points to the agema of the hypaspists. Herein lies the second problem. The Agema is the corps d'elite of the guard troops: the king's personal foot guard; his bodyguard troop. Use of descriptors such 'rank and file' serve to lower the status of the unit for the sake of the argument and thus the claim of social "embarrassment" for the sons of the nobility being "demoted" to the status of a 'ranker'. It was rather the opposite. The ile basilikoi is clearly separate from (if a part of) the Companion cavalry; it is the king's "horse guards" and as such a higher status unit that the regular Companion cavalry. Ditto the foot agema: it is a higher status unit than the regular hypaspists. As with the paides basilikoi and the ile basilikoi, it is unlikely, in my view, to consist of "lowly rankers" derived of the general Macedonian peasantry. Far more likely is that it is composed of just that demographic that formed the rest of the units dedicated to the somewhat "lowly" job of serving and guarding the king's person.

In keeping with the theme you see it as "highly unusual, not to mention humiliating, for a Macedonian noble to serve as a ‘rank and file’ guarding a door, while their juniors, ‘paides/teenage boys’ had access to the inner sanctum". Yet this is precisely what the Macedonian noble did both as page (even running baths) and as one of the Seven. Diodorus(16.93.3-6) describes Pausanias stepping in front of Philip and taking the blows aimed at him. This is a member of the foot agema. The other Pausanias (the murderer) is also a member of such (if there is anything "highly unusual or humiliating" here it is to presume that Attalus could so assault a purported member of the Seven - not that you are so doing). Also members of this guard troop are Leonnatus, Lysimachus and Attalus (94.4). Thus Pausanias (the murderer) can be advanced "in honour among his bodyguards" (somatophylakes).

I didn’t say this either ! But I’d be hard put to think of an example of someone referred to in our sources who is unmistakenly a lowly hypaspist ranker– for it is the deeds of the “great and good” that fill the histories.

I don't disagree with the "great and good" but - again - a member of the king's foot agema is not "a lowly hypaspist ranker". The clearest example that comes to mind is that which I've already given - that of Lysimachus' brother. He may be a page but he is far more likely a member of the "somatophylakes" just as was the Pausanias who stepped in front of Philip. Whether or not it is apocryphal is irrelevant to the fact that it had to be based in the actualities for the story to make sense. I will, when I get through "catafalque-ing", have a reread of Heckel.

One cannot categorically say whether either is an officer or not, for we are simply not told in either case.It is not even certain that Peucestas was a member of the corps of ‘Hypaspists’, for Diodorus scarcely uses the word in its technical sense ( being rather weak on Macedonian military terminology), and he may be using the word here in its literal sense of ‘shieldbearer’, for he is describing Peucestas being honoured by carrying the ‘sacred shield of Ilium’ before Alexander.

I can only see Diodorus using the term twice in book 17. The first is this instance and the second is the note of 1,000 Persians added to the "hypaspists at court". I would argue both refer to the unit. On which...

Arrian, Anabasis, 1.11.7-8
Having made his way up to Troy, he sacrificed to Trojan Athena, dedicated his armour in the temple, and took down, in exchange for it, some of the sacred weapons preserved from the Trojan War. They say that his hypaspists would carry these weapons before him into battle.

Peucestas, as he supposedly carries the shield, is a hypaspist and, given he is in the immediate vicinity of the king, is of the Agema. Whether he is an officer or not we are not told though I follow your reasoning for him being so.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

I read that into the below...

Xenophon wrote:Even then, given the nature of the ‘paides’ training and its emphasis on horses, it is apparent that they generally served as ‘hetairoi’ cavalry on reaching adulthood – which also served to confirm their nobility. Heckel’s examples in his ‘cursus honorum’ paper simply show that SOME nobles could later serve as OFFICERS in the Agema. It would be highly unusual, not to mention humiliating, for a Macedonian noble to serve as a ‘rank and file’ guarding a door, while their juniors, ‘paides/teenage boys’ had access to the inner sanctum. Therefore even if there were sufficient numbers of ‘paides’ to keep the Agema up to strength, as well as the Companions, it would simply be socially unacceptable – amounting to serious ‘demotion’ - to serve as a 'ranker'.

There two major problems with that rationale. The first is that - as Heckel states - there is no evidence to be found for members of the paides progressing immediately from page to Companion cavalry at the age of eighteen or so. What evidence there is (patchy though it is) points to the agema of the hypaspists.

Firstly, I can't see how you would read my words as excluding fighting on foot.....
Secondly, the old "absence of evidence" argument, I see ! There is no direct evidence that paides went to either Hetairoi or Agema. But I would suggest an inference that youths undergoing mounted training then go on to the cavalry is rather more likely than to infer that those who underwent that mounted training went direct into the Agema and served in the ranks on foot, when the ONLY evidence for service in the Agema we have is that some LATER served, almost certainly as officers, as I said in the section of my post you quoted. Nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. That having gained some experience in the cavalry, a noble might later be posted in turn to a command in the Agema seems quite likely to me.

Use of descriptors such 'rank and file' serve to lower the status of the unit for the sake of the argument and thus the claim of social "embarrassment" for the sons of the nobility being "demoted" to the status of a 'ranker'. It was rather the opposite. The ile basilikoi is clearly separate from (if a part of) the Companion cavalry; it is the king's "horse guards" and as such a higher status unit that the regular Companion cavalry. Ditto the foot agema: it is a higher status unit than the regular hypaspists. As with the paides basilikoi and the ile basilikoi, it is unlikely, in my view, to consist of "lowly rankers" derived of the general Macedonian peasantry. Far more likely is that it is composed of just that demographic that formed the rest of the units dedicated to the somewhat "lowly" job of serving and guarding the king's person.

What a tortuous piece of argument ! Regardless of the status of the unit, the difference between 'Officer' and 'other ranks' is omni-present. And the point about standing sentry duty outside, whilst the 'boys' have the privilege of waiting on the King personally, and sharing his table, is perfectly valid. For that matter, tasks such as drawing the King's bath, or waiting on him at table are hardly to be compared with the daily chores of the ordinary Guardsman - chopping wood, fetching water, putting up tents marching hither and yon etc

That these Guardsmen were selected for their physique from ALL the Makedones (Macedonian citizens) is precisely where Theopompus tells us they came from, supported by the reference to the feast, of argyraspides "of outstanding stature." Brawn, not birth, is the selection criteria. Nor is "peasants" an appropriate term for the Makedones - citizens, and relatively wealthy at that.

Nor does any of this address the problem of numbers I referred to. The paides who underwent the Royal training, bonding with the King, may have numbered as few as 50 ( if all were brought out to Alexander [Curtius V.1.42 and D.S XVII.65]), and certainly no-one estimates more than a hundred or so. The passage of Diodorus also clearly infers that the 'paides' was not open to all nobility either, just the highest of the King's "Friends"[principum Macedoniae]. This is a fatal flaw to Heckel's idea. That is a long way from being enough (500-1,000) to fill the ranks of the Agema. Curtius [VIII.8.6 ] also tells us that the King's 'paides' were a training school for "generals and governors of provinces" i.e. senior positions. Again this fits with a low number, for there was nothing like 500-1,000 of these positions available ! Are we to assume, then, that the bulk of Macedon's nobles were content serve out their lives as ordinary infantrymen, albeit with the privilege of guarding the King ? Here, inter alia, Heckel's proposition falls down.

In keeping with the theme you see it as "highly unusual, not to mention humiliating, for a Macedonian noble to serve as a ‘rank and file’ guarding a door, while their juniors, ‘paides/teenage boys’ had access to the inner sanctum". Yet this is precisely what the Macedonian noble did both as page (even running baths) and as one of the Seven.

As I said above, there is a world of difference between waiting on the King, and being allowed to eat with him at his table, or the privileges and high rank of "the seven", on the one hand, and standing sentry duty in the cold and wet outside on the other. Nor could the Agema, given its numbers, have 'served' the King in such a personal way, and we never hear of them usurping the role of the seven or the paides. Serving the King as a paide, with its subsequent expectation of high appointment is in keeping with nobility and its ethos, but not serving as an infantryman, Royal Guard or not !

Diodorus(16.93.3-6) describes Pausanias stepping in front of Philip and taking the blows aimed at him. This is a member of the foot agema. The other Pausanias (the murderer) is also a member of such (if there is anything "highly unusual or humiliating" here it is to presume that Attalus could so assault a purported member of the Seven - not that you are so doing). Also members of this guard troop are Leonnatus, Lysimachus and Attalus (94.4). Thus Pausanias (the murderer) can be advanced "in honour among his bodyguards" (somatophylakes).

Or perhaps all those referred to are members of Philip's "seven" somatophylakes ? Or his close "Friends/Philoi" ? Pausanias the murderer was certainly one of Philip's "seven" for example. After all, it is these who are close to Philip when he is assassinated - his 'doryphoroi' ( likely Agema) are at a distance. [Diodorus XVI.93]. There is no certainty that any of these are in the Agema, and a probability that they are not.....being people of rank and close to Philip, rather than mere ordinary Guardsmen.

that of Lysimachus' brother. He may be a page but he is far more likely a member of the "somatophylakes"

....except that Curtius, source for the anecdote, says he is a 'paide', not a 'somatophylax'......

Peucestas, as he supposedly carries the shield, is a hypaspist and, given he is in the immediate vicinity of the king, is of the Agema. Whether he is an officer or not we are not told though I follow your reasoning for him being so.

....just so.....

[agesilaos]

Curtius, of course uses neither term as a Latin writer, he does use 'corporis custodis' for somatophylax - in a general sense which includes the ile basilikoi - in the passage in question

35 Rex tamen subinde equos mutans sine intermissione fugientes insequebatur. Nobiles iuvenes comitari eum soliti defecerant praeter Philippum. Lysimachi erat frater, tum primum adultus et, quod facile adpareret, indolis rarae. 36 Is pedes — incredibile dictu — per D stadia vectum regem comitatus est, saepe equum suum offerente Lysimacho, nec tamen, ut digrederetur a rege, effici potuit, cum lorica indutus arma gestaret. 37 Idem, cum perventum esset in saltum, in quo se barbari abdiderant, nobilem edidit pugnam regemque comminus cum hoste dimicantem protexit. 38 Sed postquam barbari in fugam effusi deseruere silvas, animus, qui in ardore pugnae corpus sustentaverat, liquit subitoque ex omnibus membris profuso sudore arboris proximae stipiti se adplicuit.

Philip is described as ‘primum adultus’ or ‘just turned adult’, the pages are consistently ‘pueri’ or ‘liberos’ which is to say children, cf. V 1 xlii and the whole of the Hermolaus Conspiracy VIII 6ff. The confusion comes from ‘Nobiles iuvenes comitari eum soliti…’ – the noble youths who were accustomed to accompany him…- a ‘puer’ is not a ‘iuvenis’ nor could one ever be ‘primum adultus’. One might also note that the body of which Philip is the most active are footmen with armour (lorica) and probably a shield; hence the emphasis on his protecting the King, though that could be by his prowess. That they are a body of infantry is shown by the fact that the rest of the unit have dropped out of a foot race (had they been mounted their desertion of the king would be treason!). The most natural candidate for this foot unit of noble youths in close attendance to the king is the agema of the hypaspists.

Curtius does seem to have had difficulty with translating the term ‘basilikoi paides’, simply because he understood what they were; most of the information we have coming from him. He understood they were free nobleborn menials yet to achieve manhood. ‘Puer’ is the natural translation of ‘pais’ but in Curtius’ day ‘puer’ had connotations of slavery, ‘minister’ is similarly tainted and ‘liberos’ perhaps too broad; there was no Roman institution for him to hang his coat on, and to that we probably owe his explanation of their duties etc.

[Paralus]

Firstly, I can't see how you would read my words as excluding fighting on foot.....

Can I just make myself just a little clearer? I "read into that" - late at night after a six or more hour drive. I do not say you believe Macedonian nobility did not fight on foot. I disagree that it was in any way a "demotion" or otherwise. Ptolemy made much of his fighting on foot (not to mention killing a "king").

Secondly, the old "absence of evidence" argument, I see ! There is no direct evidence that paides went to either Hetairoi or Agema.

Again: there is no evidence to be found for members of the paides progressing immediately from page to Companion cavalry at the age of eighteen or so. What evidence there is (patchy though it is) points to the agema of the hypaspists.

But I would suggest an inference that youths undergoing mounted training then go on to the cavalry is rather more likely than to infer that those who underwent that mounted training went direct into the Agema and served in the ranks on foot, when the ONLY evidence for service in the Agema we have is that some LATER served, almost certainly as officers, as I said in the section of my post you quoted.

These youths - as I said previously - are hardly to be imagined in full armour on foot at sixteen. As "striplings" they attended the king in the hunt and battle on horse. By the age of an Athenian ephebe it is time for infantry work. A selection of these men are to become infantry commanders and they are, seemingly to your view, to become so with no knowledge of the infantry. Yes, I know England lived with an officer class of "purchasers", but Heckel's progression makes more sense to me. We do not necessarily need to see young Macedonian nobles being part of the agema from 18-29 but I certainly see them as making it up during those years. Thus Peucestas, likely in his mid to late twenties or so, protects his king.

What a tortuous piece of argument ! Regardless of the status of the unit, the difference between 'Officer' and 'other ranks' is omni-present. And the point about standing sentry duty outside, whilst the 'boys' have the privilege of waiting on the King personally, and sharing his table, is perfectly valid. For that matter, tasks such as drawing the King's bath, or waiting on him at table are hardly to be compared with the daily chores of the ordinary Guardsman - chopping wood, fetching water, putting up tents marching hither and yon etc.

"Tortuous"?! Your entire choice of language is designed to lower the standing of the unit - to facilitate the argument!! The "paides" were so called because they performed the duties of slaves yet you claim their position as highly privileged. As sons of the nobility they were reduced to base service upon the king if not to his base needs. Why would the senior Macedonian nobility acquiesce to such? Why would this nobility supply the Macedonian kings' original foot guard (of whatever number), as many have supposed, if such service as "lowly rankers" was below them? Again it is far more likely that the foot agema is composed of exactly the demographic that formed the rest of the units dedicated to the somewhat "lowly" job of serving and guarding the king's person: the nobility and their sons.

Nor is "peasants" an appropriate term for the Makedones - citizens, and relatively wealthy at that.

Are you suggesting that the pezhetairoi and regular hypaspists were drawn from 'wealthy' citizens?

The passage of Diodorus also clearly infers that the 'paides' was not open to all nobility either, just the highest of the King's "Friends"[principum Macedoniae]. This is a fatal flaw to Heckel's idea.

I'm afraid this a fatal flaw to your own argument. Diodorus, unlike Arrian, refers consistently to the hetairoi as philoi throughout book 17 (along with his council of Friends - cf famously Gaugamela 17.57.1 where the entire Companion cavalry are "Friends") . Your distinction is meaningless. It is a bit a stretch for someone who views Diodorus as "being rather weak on Macedonian military terminology" to all of a sudden consider him an expert! I note also that you rely on Curtius for your "quote" unless there is a Latin codex of Diodorus?

Curtius [VIII.8.6 ] also tells us that the King's 'paides' were a training school for "generals and governors of provinces" i.e. senior positions. Again this fits with a low number, for there was nothing like 500-1,000 of these positions available ! .

Your rationale being that every paides became "generals and governors of provinces"? Clearly not every member of the paides basilikoi became such; almost certainly the bulk did not. All Curtius' statement requires is that this was "the school for such"; some became so and many did not.

Or perhaps all those referred to are members of Philip's "seven" somatophylakes ? Or his close "Friends/Philoi" ? Pausanias the murderer was certainly one of Philip's "seven" for example. After all, it is these who are close to Philip when he is assassinated - his 'doryphoroi' ( likely Agema) are at a distance. [Diodorus XVI.93]. There is no certainty that any of these are in the Agema, and a probability that they are not.....being people of rank and close to Philip, rather than mere ordinary Guardsmen.

Diodorus indiscriminately uses doryphoroi or somatophylakes and here the philoi are Philip's guest-friends - not his guards. Diodorus tells us he invited these "hangers on" (16.91.6) and it was for them (and the rest of Greece) that he put on the hullabaloo. Diodorus (from his source) emphasises that Philip did not want to appear a "tyrant" to these people and so ordered his guards to be at a distance. What is as near a certainty as one can get is that Pausanias (the murderer) is not one of Philip's "Seven". It is inconceivable that, were he so, Attalus could hand him over to his "muleteers' for raping. In any case, if you decide that he is, as you say, "certainly one of Philip's Seven", then so must also be Leonnatus, Attalus and Perdiccas for they too are "somatophylakes". Members of the Agema all. Then again, possibly all of the Seven.... some demoted later to be promoted ... again... later. I know which makes more sense to me.

that of Lysimachus' brother. He may be a page but he is far more likely a member of the "somatophylakes"

....except that Curtius, source for the anecdote, says he is a 'paide', not a 'somatophylax'......

No he does not. I'd be interested where Curtius ever uses "somatophylax". He is describing a force of men following the king - on foot. These are near certainly those offered the cavalry mounts in the pursuit of Darius who mount with their normal arms (with, possibly, Agrianes).

[Paralus]

Secondly, the number of ‘paides basilikoi’ is nowhere near enough to support an Agema of at least 500, and ultimately 1,000 strong. The ‘paides’ seem to have numbered tens rather than hundreds – we hear of 50 being sent to Alexander – and whilst modern authors guess at the total, the largest estimate I have seen is ‘not more than 200’. Even then, given the nature of the ‘paides’ training and its emphasis on horses, it is apparent that they generally served as ‘hetairoi’ cavalry on reaching adulthood – which also served to confirm their nobility.

I meant to include this in last night's. Composing over a long time whilst watching English wickets fall saw me leave it out. No such time-consuming posts tonight. The wickets I can't bear watching.

Your view is that the paides basilikoi saw the youths trained to fight on horseback. I agree with this. You follow on to suppose that these youths, once "of age", then went onto the Companion cavalry. This poses something of a conundrum for the proposition. We are told that Alexander took 1,800 "Macedonian" cavalry with him and left 1,500 of the same with Antipater (Diod. 17.17.4-5). It is thus widely assumed that the hetairoi numbered 3,300 at the time of the invasion. This was as a result of Philip's assiduous enlarging of the hetairoi over his rule. The numbers of pages are argued to be "nowhere near enough to support an Agema of at least 500, and ultimately 1,000 strong" yet, it appears, they were numerous enough to support a far larger unit. Indeed Alexander, between 333 and 331, levied 1,300 hetairoi from Macedonia (Arr. 1.29.4; Plb. 12.19.2; Curt. 5.1.40; Diod. 17.65.1). There is an emphasis in the sources that these were "young men' (Diod. 17.49.1; cf Curt. 7.1.37) - at least that great group brought by Attalus. It would seem then that whilst the number of the paides could never support a unit of 500 to 1,000, they made a splendid job of keeping up the hetairoi numbers.

Philip's policy of enlarging the hetairoi was aimed at enlarging his Companion cavalry corps. It would then seem questionable that he would then limit the entry into the "school" of pages to some sub class of his hetairoi. As I say, Diodorus use of "Friends" in no way supports this notion.

I believe I will go to bed: Australia can take the wickets but it cannot score the runs. I had a wager with a friend that we'd bowl England out for 300-320 and then be forced to follow on if Clarke failed. The only reason we will not follow on is England's low score. Oh dear...

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

Curtius, of course uses neither term as a Latin writer, he does use 'corporis custodis' for somatophylax - in a general sense which includes the ile basilikoi

Quite true, but rather than hop back and forth from Latin to Greek, for simplicity's sake I stuck to Macedonian terminology ( unless necessary to give Latin)

Philip is described as ‘primum adultus’ or ‘just turned adult’, the pages are consistently ‘pueri’ or ‘liberos’ which is to say children, cf. V 1 xlii and the whole of the Hermolaus Conspiracy VIII 6ff. The confusion comes from ‘Nobiles iuvenes comitari eum soliti…’ – the noble youths who were accustomed to accompany him…- a ‘puer’ is not a ‘iuvenis’ nor could one ever be ‘primum adultus’. One might also note that the body of which Philip is the most active are footmen with armour (lorica) and probably a shield; hence the emphasis on his protecting the King, though that could be by his prowess. That they are a body of infantry is shown by the fact that the rest of the unit have dropped out of a foot race (had they been mounted their desertion of the king would be treason!). The most natural candidate for this foot unit of noble youths in close attendance to the king is the agema of the hypaspists.

The 'noble youths'/paides in question are likely to have served from 15-20 and 'ephebia' within that likely from 18-20, if later epigraphy is anything to go by.
'Primum adultus' then must refer either to 18 or 20. I'd agree that Philip and his fellow 'noble youths' are on foot ( as they seem to have served on foot in in the hunt also). But it does not follow from that, or what you have said that the "most natural candidate" is the Agema. In that case, Curtius would then have written that Philip served in the "corpores custodes" ( or even "armigeri") , a body whose name and function would be perfectly clear to Romans.

But he does not, instead referring to something else - a body of noble youths - and to Philip's only just being an adult. Again, as you have pointed out, there was no direct equivalent of 'Paides Basilikoi' in Rome, hence Curtius' need to explain matters, and difficulty in translation - though 'noble youths' is close ! The obvious candidate is in fact the 'paides basilikoi', which fits the bill in every respect.
As Heckel says:
"Hermolaos, who calls himself a puer (Curt. 8.7.8 ), is referred to by Curtius (8.6.8 ) as a iuvenis, and the Pages in general are called iuvenes at 8.6.25. Similarly, the Page Metron (cf. Diod. 17.79.4), who received the news of Dimnos' conspiracy against Alexander in 330, is called iuvenis nobilis (Curt. 8.7.22). "

The Agema in any event could hardly consist entirely of 'juvenes' ( lit: youths, juveniles), nobiles or not !

I would also hesitate over your use of 'menials'. Whilst Greeks might be baffled that the corps of paides would perform menial tasks which in their eyes were only fit for slaves, I have no doubt that the small number so selected, and only from the upper nobles, or ' principum Macedoniae' [lit: principal Macedonians : Curtius V.1.42] be it noted, regarded it as a privilege and the precursor to greater things, not to mention the honour of dining at the King's table on a regular basis....

....and for Macedon's highest, I doubt they considered life as a rank-and-file member of the Agema a suitable career....

Meanwhile, how about some actual evidence ?

[Xenophon]

Good grief, the posts seem to get longer, but don't add anything in the way of evidence and simply consist of sophistry and taking issue with my words, and pointing to my 'typos' such as writing "Diodorus" when I meant "Curtius" as is plain.....
Paralus wrote:

Again: there is no evidence to be found for members of the paides progressing immediately from page to Companion cavalry at the age of eighteen or so. What evidence there is (patchy though it is) points to the agema of the hypaspists.

Yes, I did say there is no direct evidence for either, but on balance of probability a training which included much horsemanship tends to lead to cavalry service rather than infantry, with which you seemed to agree.

You keep repeating the point about "patchy" evidence - without producing any. Rather than repeated flat assertion, and going in circles, could I trouble you to put forward this "patchy" evidence? I have put forward my "patchy" evidence from Theopompus et al that suggests the Agema were chosen from all the Macedonians ( not just nobles) on the basis of physical prowess......

The fact that Peucestas is a high noble and served in the Agema merely shows that such men could serve in that unit, likely as Officers, but is certainly NOT evidence that the whole of the unit including rank-and-file were made up of such men.

Your entire choice of language is designed to lower the standing of the unit - to facilitate the argument!! The "paides" were so called because they performed the duties of slaves yet you claim their position as highly privileged. As sons of the nobility they were reduced to base service upon the king if not to his base needs. Why would the senior Macedonian nobility acquiesce to such? Why would this nobility supply the Macedonian kings' original foot guard (of whatever number), as many have supposed, if such service as "lowly rankers" was below them? Again it is far more likely that the foot agema is composed of exactly the demographic that formed the rest of the units dedicated to the somewhat "lowly" job of serving and guarding the king's person: the nobility and their sons.

Not at all, my choice of language is designed to stress the difference between officers - a suitable post for 'nobles' - and 'rank-and-file', not a suitable post at all - especially as, at the bottom of the totem pole, it involves taking orders from all and sundry above. Consider bodyguard units generally. The sprigs of nobility serve in the Queen's Guards as officers, while the rank-and-file are not noble. Same with Napoleon's 'Old Guard'. Same with the various Royal Guard units of France, or Prussia or Russia, or Rome's Praetorian Guard.

Your argument above is circular - you pre-suppose that the nobility supplied the King's original Agema, and then argue that this is the demographic that the Agema was drawn from - but without any evidence to counter what Theopompus et al have to say, namely that they were selected for height and strength from all the Makedones. This is pure rhetoric, unless you support it with some evidence.

Are you suggesting that the pezhetairoi and regular hypaspists were drawn from 'wealthy' citizens?

No, as I am sure you are well aware - you could hardly have missed the word relatively. As with the point about officers and rankers, this is again relative. Land-owning citizens were relatively wealthy compared to the mass of the population c.f. Greek cities and their 'hoplite' classes.....

I'm afraid this a fatal flaw to your own argument. Diodorus, unlike Arrian, refers consistently to the hetairoi as philoi throughout book 17 (along with his council of Friends - cf famously Gaugamela 17.57.1 where the entire Companion cavalry are "Friends") . Your distinction is meaningless. It is a bit a stretch for someone who views Diodorus as "being rather weak on Macedonian military terminology" to all of a sudden consider him an expert! I note also that you rely on Curtius for your "quote" unless there is a Latin codex of Diodorus?

This seems a little 'rough', and certainly not a fatal flaw at all. Do you not have the Latin codex of Diodorus available to you ? It is much more complete than the Greek version.....

Just a 'typo' in writing "Diodorus" when I meant "Curtius" - as must have been obvious.I was consulting both at the time. Diodorus does tend to use "philoi" rather than "hetairoi" or other terminology. I would not regard "philoi" as Macedonian military terminology in any event. All this is a red herring, and is irrelevant to the subject.

For the avoidance of doubt, to my mind, the paides were a very exclusive 'club' and access was strictly limited, to dozens with 50 likely being the total, rather than 100 or more. It would be very risky for Alexander to leave any of the corps back in Macedonia, serving someone else - after all the purpose was to foster ties and loyalty to the KIng, in return for which the relationships formed led to glittering later careers for these privileged few.It was therefore open only to the highest, as is re-inforced by Curtius' reference to 'principum Macedoniae'[ lit: principal Macedonians]. The distinction is obvious, and certainly not meaningless.

Your rationale being that every paides became "generals and governors of provinces"? Clearly not every member of the paides basilikoi became such; almost certainly the bulk did not. All Curtius' statement requires is that this was "the school for such"; some became so and many did not.

Again, not at all. This is simply 'reductio ad absurdam'. Whilst not all paides became governors or generals, many did, and doubtless those who did not still had distinguished careers - which being an ordinary Guardsman certainly was not !

Diodorus indiscriminately uses doryphoroi or somatophylakes and here the philoi are Philip's guest-friends - not his guards. Diodorus tells us he invited these "hangers on" (16.91.6) and it was for them (and the rest of Greece) that he put on the hullabaloo. Diodorus (from his source) emphasises that Philip did not want to appear a "tyrant" to these people and so ordered his guards to be at a distance. What is as near a certainty as one can get is that Pausanias (the murderer) is not one of Philip's "Seven". It is inconceivable that, were he so, Attalus could hand him over to his "muleteers' for raping. In any case, if you decide that he is, as you say, "certainly one of Philip's Seven", then so must also be Leonnatus, Attalus and Perdiccas for they too are "somatophylakes". Members of the Agema all. Then again, possibly all of the Seven.... some demoted later to be promoted ... again... later. I know which makes more sense to me.

O.K.....fair point! I recant "certainly". My real point was that whilst the Agema were at a discrete distance, Pausanias and co were physically close to the King, hence were not part of the Agema - at least not as 'rankers'. And I agree that someone close to Philip could hardly have been handed over to muleteers to be assaulted - which tends to make me disbelieve such a yarn.

See my response to Agesilaos regarding my use of Macedonian terminology rather than Latin.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

Your view is that the paides basilikoi saw the youths trained to fight on horseback. I agree with this. You follow on to suppose that these youths, once "of age", then went onto the Companion cavalry. This poses something of a conundrum for the proposition. We are told that Alexander took 1,800 "Macedonian" cavalry with him and left 1,500 of the same with Antipater (Diod. 17.17.4-5). It is thus widely assumed that the hetairoi numbered 3,300 at the time of the invasion. This was as a result of Philip's assiduous enlarging of the hetairoi over his rule. The numbers of pages are argued to be "nowhere near enough to support an Agema of at least 500, and ultimately 1,000 strong" yet, it appears, they were numerous enough to support a far larger unit. Indeed Alexander, between 333 and 331, levied 1,300 hetairoi from Macedonia (Arr. 1.29.4; Plb. 12.19.2; Curt. 5.1.40; Diod. 17.65.1). There is an emphasis in the sources that these were "young men' (Diod. 17.49.1; cf Curt. 7.1.37) - at least that great group brought by Attalus. It would seem then that whilst the number of the paides could never support a unit of 500 to 1,000, they made a splendid job of keeping up the hetairoi numbers.

Philip's policy of enlarging the hetairoi was aimed at enlarging his Companion cavalry corps. It would then seem questionable that he would then limit the entry into the "school" of pages to some sub class of his hetairoi. As I say, Diodorus use of "Friends" in no way supports this notion.

I am certainly not suggesting that all Hetairoi cavalry had been paides! Nor even that the 'Ile Basilikoi' were all former paides. Simply that on completion of their training, the likely unit they would have joined ( perhaps only a dozen or so 'graduates' at a time or less) would have been the 'Ile Basilikoi', which numbered several hundred. I agree with you that Philip's policy had been to expand his 'Hetairoi' cavalry by all means - and that included granting pasturage land and horses to non- Macedonians.......it is equally incorrect to assume all 'Hetairoi' had been paides, as to assume the whole Agema of Hypapsists had been.....

[Paralus]

Good grief, the posts seem to get longer, but don't add anything in the way of evidence and simply consist of sophistry and taking issue with my words, and pointing to my 'typos' such as writing "Diodorus" when I meant "Curtius" as is plain [....] Just a 'typo' in writing "Diodorus" when I meant "Curtius" - as must have been obvious.I was consulting both at the time.

I have difficulties with accusations of sophistry and "taking issue" with words. What you actually wrote:

The paides who underwent the Royal training, bonding with the King, may have numbered as few as 50 ( if all were brought out to Alexander [Curtius V.1.42 and D.S XVII.65]), and certainly no-one estimates more than a hundred or so. The passage of Diodorus also clearly infers that the 'paides' was not open to all nobility either, just the highest of the King's "Friends"[principum Macedoniae].

You have referenced both Curtius and Diodorus, that is true, but that is for the numbers. Your following claim is that Diodorus infers a limited franchise for the paides (limited by what??) and you, in inverted commas, use Diodorus' Friends (with the capital). It looks like you are referring to the source you took the term from.

Diodorus does tend to use "philoi" rather than "hetairoi" or other terminology. I would not regard "philoi" as Macedonian military terminology in any event. All this is a red herring, and is irrelevant to the subject.

I'm afraid that's just wrong. Diodorus does not "tend to".Diodorus all through book 18 uses "friends" indiscriminately. The Companion cavalry is termed such - even by troop. The Philoi are, in fact, a Macedonian "institution" and, as such, a "technical term". It populates books 18-20 and describes the adherents (for want of a better term) of the Successors. This has some ramifications for the source of Diodorus 17 for he clearly wrote in an era where philoi was the term for the important people (synhedrion) at, and in the guest-friend service of, the court. Diodorus, in book 17, describes the entire Companion cavalry as these important people.

The red herring is your seeming conflation of Curtius and Diodorus to prove that the latter's "Friends" were something other than what they were. And, in any case, Curtius' language translates as sons of Macedonian nobles rather than highest of the King's"Friends". "Principal" Macedonians would be the nobility unless we can justify some process of selection.

[Xenophon]

Another digression on the subject of Diodorus and his terminology in Book XVII ? Since that is not related to the subject, I shall refer you to "A note on Diodorus and Macedonian military terminology in Book XVII : R D Milns" for a full discussion.

Relevant to Diodorus' use of "philoi" is this:-

Diodorus, like Plutarch in his Life of Alexander, normally refers to Alexander's
'Companions' (in the limited sense) as "philoi" e.g. 17.30; 21.1; 37.5; 39.2; 54.3; 79.1; 80.1; 96.1 to
give a few examples), but does occasionally refer to them as "hetairoi" (e.g. 72.1; 77.6; 83.7; 100.2;
114.2, though he uses "philoi" at 114.1). His usual term, in Book XVII, however, for the Companion
Cavalry is, with variants, "oi ton aristous hippeis" [the best/finest of the cavalry......goes on to give a number of examples ]

...This last passage, 60.1, also shows that Diodorus or his source was
aware that within the Companion Cavalry there was a special unit, 'the Royal Squadron', an
expression which he also uses at 57.1, when describing Alexander's dispositions before Gaugamela:
" On the right wing Alexander stationed the royal squadron[basilikon eile] under the command of Cleitus the Black (as he was called), and next to this the other Friends(philoi) under the command of Parmenion's son Philotas, then in succession the other seven squadrons under the same commander."
..The term "ile basilikoi" the one normally used by Ptolemy-Arrian for this
special squadron (cf. Arrian 1. 18.3; 2.5.9; 3.1 .4; 3.11., though, as Tarn pointed out, after Bactra
the Royal Squadron is always called the "agema", with or without the addition of 'of the
Companions' or 'of the Companion Cavalry' (cf. 4.24.1; 5.12.1; 5.13.4; 6.21.3). Diodorus, it is
interesting to note, never uses the word "agema" in connection with the Companion Cavalry in
Book XVIl,

( My apologies that I am unable to reproduce the original Greek characters, and have to painstakingly transliterate them )

Paralus wqrote:

The red herring is your seeming conflation of Curtius and Diodorus to prove that the latter's "Friends" were something other than what they were. And, in any case, Curtius' language translates as sons of Macedonian nobles rather than highest of the King's"Friends". "Principal" Macedonians would be the nobility unless we can justify some process of selection.

As Milns points out, Diodorus (or his source for Book XVII) confuses the terms "philoi" and "hetairoi" and is clearly not 'au fait' with the terminology here.

Curtius' language does not, I believe translate as "sons of Macedonian nobles" ( the word 'nobiles' is not used here) but rather, as has been referred to, Curtius says "principum Macedoniae" = principal/foremost Macedonians - The Loeb translates as "chief men"- which is obviously a much smaller group than just 'nobles' generally, and then goes on to describe the duties of this small (50) select group whose fathers were the 50 foremost men in Macedonia.

I take it that the absence of any evidence whatsoever that would support the proposition of the Agema of Hypaspists being made up entirely of noble former paides means no-one has been unable to find any ? Certainly I am not aware of any, and there is, as we have seen, several pieces of evidence that suggest otherwise.