Shield Bearer uniform

[Xenophon]

But digressions on digressions are the Pothos way, so I'm told....

Throughout history, armies have experimented with 'Mounted Infantry/Dragoons' i.e. men who combine the mobility of cavalry with the fighting power of infantry i.e. ride to battle, but fight on foot. Being neither one thing nor the other, they have the disadvantages of both. While mounted, and not being trained for it, they are no match for 'real' cavalry. When dismounted, a quarter of the men (usually) are hors de combat because of the necessity of having horse holders, and being in relatively few numbers, usually outnumbered by opposing infantry.

In addition this sort of force places great strain on men and overloaded beasts.

Their advantage is that outside a pitched battle, they are a great way of quickly getting 'heavy' infantry to a skirmish etc and thus not only provide a 'stiffening' force, but also surprise an opponent who can't believe that heavy infantry have got to the scene so fast, and who might panic at the thought that the main infantry force of the army is nearby. Ideal for 'pursuit' - which is exactly what Alexander used them for. It is little surprise that their use declined after Alexander, for there were fewer opportunities to use such 'commando like' special forces.

[agesilaos]

Against this, each time Arrian mentions Alexander mounting infantry it is an ad hoc measure drawing on different men rather than repeated use of the same men, nor is the method the same sometimes a specific group of infantry have their own horses (I 6 v), then cavalry surrender their horses to mount the foot (III 21 vii, IV 23 ii) who are selected from those he has to hand, and, finally he double mounts some infantry (ref to follow) Agrianes I think. When the method and the personel vary I think it unlikely we are faced with an organised unit rather Alexander demonstrates his flexible thinking and the macedonians their adaptability.

[Xenophon]

We are all in agreement, I believe, that these forces were 'ad hoc' in Alexander's case rather than a formalised unit of the army.

[agesilaos]

Now we have dealt with the aside…

Let us consider Paralus’ suggestion that HHAA is generally a reference to the ‘synedrion’ or council. But first can I just take this opportunity to appear pedantic; it is hoi hetairoi amph’auton not hha hauton as you have written the apostrophe is just that, it denotes the elision of the terminal iota of ‘amphi’ because the next word begins with a vowel ‘alpha’, there is a mark over the upsilon of ‘auton’ but this is a stress or diacretal mark not a displaced aspirate (h). I don’t say this to preen only to prevent further error, which may discredit your thinking in more ‘lofty’ arena. On this forum it is, I hope understood that Greek is not taught anymore below degree level and any gaffs are not cause to dismiss the thought accompanying them. I use the wrong forms myself sometimes… feet of clay; that’s why I never walk!

Back to the plot, I think we can agree that Curtius is not referring to the ‘synhedrion’ when he says at VIII 2 xxxv ‘Nobiles iuvenes comitari eum soliti’ – his customary guard of young nobles – these are later termed ‘sua cohorte’, now this is an organised unit in the Latin (ok, there is room for ambiguity but the context makes any general interpretation unlikely). In Arrian, we have in the first two instances a combat unit, three if you accept the Tyrian reference, these are not the synhedrion. That it is possible in the last two I accept but if there are a certain sort of couch associated with the HHAA then there must have been a set number of them a dais is set up in advance, one doesn’t ask Neoptolemos to nip off and grab an extra couch!

Thanks for the initial reference to ‘hegemones’ I had missed that BUT ‘hegemones’ only means ‘leaders’ and would encompass the ‘noblissimi iuvenes’ of Curtius.

It would not be surprising that in reproducing his source’s terminology Arrian missed the point, nor if he varied it to suit himself (though I would class this as special pleading, it remains possible that he chose to vary HHAA with ‘hoi amph’auton hegemones’ but that would be a dodgy premise and an unnecessary one ).

[Paralus]

But first can I just take this opportunity to appear pedantic; it is hoi hetairoi amph’auton not hha hauton as you have written the apostrophe is just that, it denotes the elision of the terminal iota of ‘amphi’ because the next word begins with a vowel ‘alpha’, there is a mark over the upsilon of ‘auton’ but this is a stress or diacretal mark not a displaced aspirate (h).

Yes, I quite understand the apostrophe and its use. Being a lazy sod, I merely copied and pasted the Latinised form from Roos' Tuebner text where, at 1.6.5, it has: tois amph' hauton hetairois. For whichever reason, in this passage, the aspirated 'h" is kept despite the excised "i". The other two attestaions delete the "h".

Back to the plot, I think we can agree that Curtius is not referring to the ‘synhedrion’ when he says at VIII 2 xxxv ‘Nobiles iuvenes comitari eum soliti’ – his customary guard of young nobles – these are later termed ‘sua cohorte’, now this is an organised unit in the Latin (ok, there is room for ambiguity but the context makes any general interpretation unlikely). In Arrian, we have in the first two instances a combat unit, three if you accept the Tyrian reference, these are not the synhedrion. That it is possible in the last two I accept but if there are a certain sort of couch associated with the HHAA then there must have been a set number of them a dais is set up in advance, one doesn’t ask Neoptolemos to nip off and grab an extra couch!

The argument is ‘Hammodesque’. Hammond (in)famously proposed that asthippoi should be retained as a term meaning “townsmen-cavalry”, an elite unit in Antogonos’ army (that is attested once and in a light cavalry arm). He argued this because Bosworth had shown that asthetairoi was correct as it stood in the manuscripts of Arrian. Because we have the one – attested six times – the other means, for a cavalry unit,exactly what Hammond argues asthetaoiroi means. I won’t bring up the settlers up-country (oops, I did). The danger comes with conflating the two sources just as in comparing practices of different times (the danger in that latter I will very shortly ignore!). We cannot be certain that - even if hoi hetairoi amph’auton is a technical term referring to a unit - that both sources are referencing that same unit.

Best to clear up the instances referred to before going on. First is the usage at Pelion (1 6.5); second is Demaratos at Granikos (1.15.6); third is Tyre (2.23.6); fourth Opis (7.11.2); finally there is the re-organisation of the taxeis (7.24.2).

Tyre is misleading for it relies on the two things: special pleading that the amph’auton has dropped from the text and that the first two instances of hoi hetairoi amph’auton – in a military narrative – must be a technical term indicating a military unit and so the hetairoi of Tyre must be of that unit thus proving amph’auton is, for some reason, missing. Full circle?

Leaving aside notions of dropped text, instances one and two do not, to my mind, indicate a special military unit. For Pelion to do so, one must accept that somatophylakes is here used for the agema of the hypaspists. The notation occurs immediately the phalanx drill and advance has finished - a drill and advance in such tight country that the phalanx is forced to deploy 120 deep. If the somatophylakes are hypaspists whence comes their horses that they mount? There is hardly room in this scenario for them to be close at hand. Alexander has placed 200 cavalry on either wing and, at parade drill's end, he proceeds to advance - in that order - until noticing the occupied hilltop. It makes far more logical sense rather than talking about an agema of a petikosiarchy (? insert you favourite number here) with 500 horses in close attendance on an army in battle order, that Arrian is referring to the Seven. That would see the hoi hetairoi amph’auton also as cavalry, both groups of which are ordered to be prepared for fighting on foot. It is implicit that Alexander goes with them – “having seen Alexander’s advance [...] having occupied the hill with his hetairoi” - for it is from the hill, which he has taken, that he then orders the hypaspists and the rest of the infantry to follow across the river.

I find it far more plausible that armour bearers - for at least the king's "Friends" (in the ile basilikoi ) - will have been closer to hand and that these hetairoi armed themselves for fighting on foot as instructed.

The second instance I continue to see as those hetairoi in close combat about the king. Of necessity these will be members of the ile basilikoi as Demaratos must have been for this is where the king fought. I do not see it as indicating a special subgroup of young nobles. On such a basis, insistence that tois hetairois with Alexander at Tyre are the hoi hetairoi amph’auton on the basis that amph’auton has slipped from the text is not convincing.

It is even more unconvincing when one reads the context of the last instance. This is clearly a military meeting wherein Alexander is making major changes to the Macedonian army. The silver footed couches are a detail that is confusing the discussion. Alexander well knew the number of his "most important" (I refrain from using 'closest') hetairoi and they, too, knew who they were. Then extravagance of his pavilion in the dying days of his reign is legendary. These hetairoi, sitting around or ‘either side’ of the king, will be those he is in consultation with in making the large changes to the armed forces. This is not to say that guards are not present – they clearly would be. There is no mention of this young guard troop in the murder of Kleitos for example. If the hetairoi amph’auton were the guards who sat in immediate attendance upon the king, Arrian might have mentioned them. Instead we find the somatophylakes as we should expect.

Thanks for the initial reference to ‘hegemones’ I had missed that BUT ‘hegemones’ only means ‘leaders’ and would encompass the ‘noblissimi iuvenes’ of Curtius.

Whether it does or not isn’t really the point. Arrian here uses the ‘commanders about / with him’. If we apply the usage you assign to hoi hetairoi amph’auton, we would have a special sub unit of commanders. Ditto at Darius’ court were we might posit a sub group of trustworthy Persians (Persēn amph' hauton pistōn 1.25.3). More crucially, if your view is correct, we must also posit a sub group of the Seven for Arrian (6.12.3) describes the army believing that the letter Alexander wrote had been “forged by tōn amph' auton sōmatophulakōn”. I believe the term is descriptive of the Seven rather than a sub group. I believe that is how it is used elsewhere.

Should the term refers to any groups – if it so does – it is to be that group of confidants that Alexander kept about him. The same group (pity they are not all named) that he calls together for a confab before stitching up Philotas. Essentially the same group, I believe, as the below (Arr. 1.25.5):

Summoning a council of friends (xunagagōn de tous philous boulēn), Alexander proposed that they determine what should be done about his namesake.

Just who are these philoi? Well, Arrian opens the next sentence by saying that “the Companions (tois hetairois) were of the opinion...”. So, clearly this council of philoi – his close advisory council – are his hetairoi and clearly included his somatophylakes. Many of these, those without other commands or duties, will have ridden with him as part of the ile basilikoi. Others will have been his assigned commanders such as Parmenion, Krateros, etc (as one sees at the Philotas trial). These are the Companions about him in the military narrative and those who sat about him dispensing advice such as at 7.24.2.

Time to ignore the dangers of comparing differing times. The situation, with a change of a word to reflect the latter royal courts, is reflected in Demetrius’ loss at Gaza. Here both his philoi as well as those close and experienced adviser-philoi to his father fought in Demetrius’ agema and died. Those who did not were captured as Diodorus relates:

for it happened that most of his friends had fallen, the most distinguished of whom were Pithon, who had shared the command on equal terms with himself, and Boeotus, who for a long time had lived with his father Antigonus and had shared in all his state secrets. 3 In the battle there had fallen more than five hundred men, the majority of whom were cavalry and men of distinction; and more than eight thousand had been captured. Ptolemy and Seleucus permitted the recovery of the dead, and they returned to Demetrius without ransom the royal baggage, which had been captured, and those of the prisoners who had been accustomed to be in attendance at the court tous peri tēn aulēn

Here the philoi who died are named: they fought in the agema. Many of the others – “men of distinction” who fought in the cavalry (agema) – also fell. Others – tous peri tēn aulēn those around the court – were captured. These, too, will have been with him on the field (Demetrius did not take his father’s “court” with him). This, in essence, is little different to Alexander’s council of philoi. These are the hetairoi found fighting about him in the military narrative.

[agesilaos]

I did think it was an un-Paralus error, hence my reticence in correcting it, undone by another's typo (which is what it must be, bad proof-reading!). I will reply to the substance of your post after the T20 finishes, any typos will be due to Strongbow (but, as the advertising has it, I will have earned them)

[Paralus]

I did think it was an un-Paralus error, hence my reticence in correcting it, undone by another's typo (which is what it must be, bad proof-reading!). I will reply to the substance of your post after the T20 finishes, any typos will be due to Strongbow (but, as the advertising has it, I will have earned them)

Any reply later today might be accorded some debating 'slack' due to an indulgence in Father's Day black beer on my behalf. Some seafood at the Sydney Rowers might be in order!

Having a look through the uses of amph' auton, I noticed that near to half (no, I did not keep a list) included the aspirated "h". That seems a lot for typos. On typos, I edited a few typos in the previous post and realised I'd not addressed instance four (Opis). I've had a rethink on this and so to it (translations from the Landmark)...

The set piece of Opis runs from 7.8 - 7.11.7. Arrian describes those with Alexander on the platform twice. Having made his speech he departs in a huff "with the Companions and bodyguards who attended him" (hoi amph' auton hetairoi te kai hoi sōmatophulakes ). Earlier, at the start of proceedings when the protest becomes abusive, Alexander leaps down from the platform "with his officers" (sun tois amph' hauton hēgemosin - another instance of the retained "h"). In the second instance Alexander "ordered them (his officers) to arrest the principal agitators and pointed out the to the hypaspists the men they should arrest".

Now, Arrian's purpose is not to describe the groups in attendance on the King in any technical fashion; these groups are mentioned only because they are integral to the narrative. In the second the hegemones with him , if not of his boule or council, are hypaspist officers as, having followed Alexander down to carry out his arrest order, the king the points out to the hypaspists who they should arrest. The latter strikes me as the most probable for if Arrian is not describing the one group in the one sentence (and thus the hegemones is a separate group) he is guilty of somewhat poor and confused writing in first ordering his officers to arrest thirteen individuals and then points out the same individuals for the hypaspists to also arrest. Thus I'd think they are officers of the hypaspists - either regular or agema. Again, I favour the latter. If not, they are "non-descript" officers ordered to arrest the agitators and the hypaspists are then ordered to do so on these officers' behalf.

When Alexander departs in his huff he does so "with the Companions and bodyguards who attended him". Far from being a technical term, hoi amph' auton hetairoi is simply qualifying those hetairoi with him which included the sōmatophulakes . Here again, the somatophulakes is either the Seven or other groups deputed to serve as phulakes. To me it is referring to both groups. I do not see this as any different to Arrian's use of amph' auton sōmatophulakōn in the forged letter scenario: amph' auton simply qualifes the noun and, in this case, applies to both hetairoi and somatophulakes as Mensch's Landmark translation renders it. I think this coupling of words is used in such fashion throughout Arrian's work as illustrated by the forged letter and the trusted Persians. Demaratos, at Graniokos, is no more a member of an elite sub group than the Somatophulakes are who are suspected of forging a letter or the trusted Persians at the Persian court.

So, in my view, this episode shows Arrian describing three groups: hetairoi, somatophulakes and hegemones / hypspists. Arrian does not exhibit a strong suit in using technical terminology and not consistently when he does so. Were it not for Diodorus' explicit statement (17.99.4 - doubted by some for some difficult to understand reason) we would have, for example, to refer back to Alexander's visit to Illium (1.11.7-8) to ascertain that Peukestas was a hypaspist and, near certainly, of the agema. Couple that with the number of different terms Arrian uses to describe the hypaspists, I'm hardly convinced the "Alexander of history writing" is using hoi amph' auton hetairoi as a technical term to describe an elite sub unit and using it consistently at that. Rather, that (hoi) amph' auton, as elsewhere, simply qualifies the noun in a descriptive rather than technical sense.

[Xenophon]

As I indicated earlier. HHAA and its variations is used to describe those who had reason to be close about the King on any particular occasion, and which would be variable. What we would call the King's entourage.
Earlier I posted a list of the Synedroi/Council:

"... the synedroi/Council were mostly made up of :
The seven 'Bodyguards/Somatophylakes' - appointed by the King
The King's personal companions/basilikoi hetairoi - named for life by the King, and generally, but not always drawn from the aristocracy. Later often called 'Philoi/Friends' presumably to distinguish them from 'Hetairoi/Companion cavalrymen'
Senior Officers or Generals /Hegemones ton Taxeon.

Some Nobles were apparently members by birthright......"

It is my belief that, drawing on earlier Greek practises, those “closest about the King” would not only be these Counsellors( which I listed above) whose duties did not take them elsewhere, but also priests, seers and the like, honoured guests such as allies ( e.g. Agriainian royalty ) personal physicians, the 50 paides.....in short anyone who had business being ‘close to the King’, part of his entourage, as I put it earlier and which would inevitably vary with the occasion.

Earlier, Paralus also postulated a more or less informal group ( hence the use of the phrase HHAA), and said that IF it was a formal group, then it would be the synedroi. I believe we are in agreement that it was almost certainly not, nor was it a formal military unit .

Paralus wrote:

In the second the hegemones with him , if not of his boule or council, are hypaspist officers as, having followed Alexander down to carry out his arrest order, the king the points out to the hypaspists who they should arrest. The latter strikes me as the most probable for if Arrian is not describing the one group in the one sentence (and thus the hegemones is a separate group) he is guilty of somewhat poor and confused writing in first ordering his officers to arrest thirteen individuals and then points out the same individuals for the hypaspists to also arrest. Thus I'd think they are officers of the hypaspists - either regular or agema. Again, I favour the latter. If not, they are "non-descript" officers ordered to arrest the agitators and the hypaspists are then ordered to do so on these officers' behalf.

I should think the latter situation, since as we can see from the above list, the 'Hegemones' of the 'synedroi' are the Army's senior Officers/generals/Hegemones ton taxeion ( which we might translate as Brigadier generals), and probably also including the Guard equivalents. Thus they are not just Hypaspist officers, but a more generic group of senior officers 'close about Alexander', and as Paralus says, they delegate the grubby business of laying hands on the offenders to the guardsmen/hypaspists at hand......

Agesilaos wrote:

Back to the plot, I think we can agree that Curtius is not referring to the ‘synhedrion’ when he says at VIII 2 xxxv ‘Nobiles iuvenes comitari eum soliti’ – his customary guard of young nobles – these are later termed ‘sua cohorte’, now this is an organised unit in the Latin (ok, there is room for ambiguity but the context makes any general interpretation unlikely)

I don't have any difficulty with this. In my view Curtius is referring to the 50 senior paides ( likely the 19-20 year-olds, as discussed earlier) who formed the innermost guard of the bedchamber, and who are an organised group. On the battlefield, they might or might not be included amongst those 'close about the King', depending on where they were posted.
In the camp, when guarding the King's bedchamber, they are clearly amongst those 'close about the King'.

Paralus wrote:

I'm hardly convinced the "Alexander of history writing" is using hoi amph' auton hetairoi as a technical term to describe an elite sub unit and using it consistently at that. Rather, that (hoi) amph' auton, as elsewhere, simply qualifies the noun in a descriptive rather than technical sense.

With which I concur - an informal group from time to time who had business being about the King, and who varied depending on the occasion, hence the rather vague description, and whose nearest equivalent is "entourage".....

[agesilaos]

I do not think I am guilty of even implying that each use of ‘amph’auton’ denotes a separate sub unit. I merely suggest that there is something odd about this particular phrase. It is certain that the ‘hetairoi’ at Tyre, ‘amph’auton’ or not, are part of the hypaspists, this is a possibility at Pelion, Opis and Babylon.

That hypaspists might have horses appears from Curtius’ account of the trial of Amyntas son of Andromenes, who is charged with refusing to surrender the last of his string of horses and says in his defence ‘What am I expected to do fight on foot?!’ This, after he has requested the uniform of an ‘armiger’, which in every other case can be shown to signify a Hypaspist.

This is quite an odd passage as Amyntas was a phalanx commander and neither expected to fight on horseback nor a Hypaspist; and it is frequently claimed that it is influenced by the Trial of Marcus Terentius of which we have an account in Tacitus ‘Annales’ Book VI.

A Roman knight, Marcus Terentius, at the crisis when all others had hypocritically repudiated the friendship of Sejanus, dared, when impeached on that ground, to cling to it by the following avowal to the Senate: "In my position it is perhaps less to my advantage to acknowledge than to deny the charge. Still, whatever is to be the issue of the matter, I shall admit that I was the friend of Sejanus, that I anxiously sought to be such, and was delighted when I was successful. I had seen him his father's colleague in the command of the praetorian cohorts, and subsequently combining the duties of civil and military life. His kinsfolk and connections were loaded with honours; intimacy with Sejanus was in every case a powerful recommendation to the emperor's friendship. Those, on the contrary, whom he hated, had to struggle with danger and humiliation. I take no individual as an instance. All of us who had no part in his last design, I mean to defend at the peril of myself alone. It was really not Sejanus of Vulsinii, it was a member of the Claudian and Julian houses, in which he had taken a position by his marriage-alliance, it was your son-in-law, Caesar, your partner in the consulship, the man who administered your political functions, whom we courted. It is not for us to criticise one whom you may raise above all others, or your motives for so doing. Heaven has intrusted you with the supreme decision of affairs, and for us is left the glory of obedience. And, again, we see what takes place before our eyes, who it is on whom you bestow riches and honours, who are the most powerful to help or to injure. That Sejanus was such, no one will deny. To explore the prince's secret thoughts, or any of his hidden plans, is a forbidden, a dangerous thing, nor does it follow that one could reach them.

"Do not, Senators, think only of Sejanus's last day, but of his sixteen years of power. We actually adored a Satrius and a Pomponius. To be known even to his freedmen and hall-porters was thought something very grand. What then is my meaning? Is this apology meant to be offered for all without difference and discrimination? No; it is to be restricted within proper limits. Let plots against the State, murderous designs against the emperor be punished. As for friendship and its obligations, the same principle must acquit both you, Caesar, and us."

The courage of this speech and the fact that there had been found a man to speak out what was in all people's thoughts, had such an effect that the accusers of Terentius were sentenced to banishment or death, their previous offences being taken into account.

It could be argued that the equine details stem from Terentius being a Knight and that Curtius has transferred that idea to Amyntas,. However, in Curtius the testimony of Antiphanes is central and he is designated ‘scriba equorum’ a Greek office rather than a Roman one which shows that the horse issue is not a graft but was germane to the original source.

This source is neither Aristoboulos, whom Curtius did not consult, nor Ptolemy who, on Arrian’s evidence passed over the Philotas Affair and its fall-out in as cursory a fashion as the Murder of Kleitos. The natural choice for the original is, then Kleitarchos, and the dramatic details, if not entirely down to Curtius himself, fit with testimonia of his work. We should not expect a complete grasp of the Macedonian organisation, although it has to be said that much of the exegesis upon which theories of constitutionalism and description of institutions rests largely on his explanatory matter.

Bearing that in mind, what are we to make of Amyntas, a taxiarch, calling for the arms of a Hypaspist? Status wise, the former outranked the latter by a country mile; all the taxiarchs are part of the Synhedrion, no one would suggest all 3,000 or whichever number is in vogue, hypaspists were, nor even the whole agema. Suppose, instead it was the uniform of what I am calling HHAA, an inner Guard from whose ranks we can deduce at least three taxiarchs came (Amyntas, on this evidence and both Perdikkas and Attalos, Amyntas’ brother, on the grounds that they were on duty when Pausanias slew Philip II and in the company of a third noble youth, Leonattos). He would then be emphasising his links with the other commanders and his former meritorious (he was given a phalanx brigade to command, after all) service in ensuring the safety of the old King, a double-edged weapon, as it would appeal both to a sense of regime loyalty and old guard nostalgia.

But what of the horses? Curtius VII 1 xxxiv

34 Ceterum, rex, equos decem habui: e quibus Antiphanes octo iam distribuerat iis, qui amiserant suos, omnino duos ipse habebam: quos cum vellet abducere homo superbissimus, certe iniquissimus,nisi pedes militare vellem, retinere cogebar.
‘As a matter of fact, Sire, I had ten horses, of which Antiphanes had already taken eight to be distributed to those who had lost theirs and I myself had but two left in all; when that most insolent man, at least the most unfair, wished to lead these away too, I was forced to retain them lest I be forced to soldier on foot.’

This is a better translation than ‘fight on foot’ in this context I think. Surely, these horses were for transport rather than action; Amyntas does not want to walk to his battles but ride there. This would be the same case as those HHAA at Pelion, the army is withdrawing so they are taking their mounts along with them probably led by grooms (I do not think these, nor armour bearers would be ‘hetairoi’) it is also clear that, unless we are to assume that only fourteen men mounted the charge, both groups were expected to be competent to fight both mounted and on foot since half are to do each in case of resistance. This would be suitable for the Seven but for ordinary hypaspists? They do not seem to be trained in mounted warfare, not even the agema. Those young men moving from the Pages would be, however.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that part of the question is, what became of an age expired Page? So far as I can see Xenophon proposes a longer pagehood with the graduates moving on to unit command and Paralus has yet to commit.

I suggest that the evidence from Curtius demonstrates that there was a body to which the Pages progressed and of which Philip was a member and that the phrase HHAA in Arrian may be that unit. The crucial point about Tyre is that Alexander’s force goes onto the ship ‘hypaspists’ and becomes ‘hetairoi’ on the wall. These ‘hetairoi’ cannot be the ‘synhedrion’, they are described as ‘hypaspists’ who were not part of the ‘synhedrion’,only their chiliarchs. The usual explanation is that all the hypaspistai were enrolled into ‘hetaireteia’ with the King, it being unthinkable that the common pikeman would be, as a ‘pezhetairos’ and his superior, the Hypaspist, not. This stems from a modern desire for a technical name for everything. I have argued elsewhere that the evidence tends to show that the ‘pezhetairoi’ were an elite body; nothing points to the generality of the foot being ‘companions’, one might ask what kudos there would be in an honour shared by one and all?

It could be that the ‘hetairoi’ meant in all but the Damaratos instance, are these ‘pezhetairoi’.

The action at Pelion cannot be explained by Alexander sending his ‘synhedrion’, into action. All the unit commanders would be with their units; the quick and accurate communication of orders being a pre-requisite of his demonstration. Which only leaves the Somatophylakes, of whom all Seven may not have been present, and a vacuum where the ‘hetairoi’ stand, the use of shields precludes them being the Companion Cavalry. This is a gap only an elite body from within the hypaspists can plausibly fill.

Arrian did not have a clue about HHAA he merely transcribes the words of his source, both Ptolemy and Aristoboulos did understand as would their Macedonian audience,

[Paralus]

Oh dear... where to begin?? I’m s’posed to be painting and erecting window shades!

Let’s start with this for it may just simplify a few more matters...

The action at Pelion cannot be explained by Alexander sending his ‘synhedrion’, into action. All the unit commanders would be with their units; the quick and accurate communication of orders being a pre-requisite of his demonstration [...]The crucial point about Tyre is that Alexander’s force goes onto the ship ‘hypaspists’ and becomes ‘hetairoi’ on the wall. These ‘hetairoi’ cannot be the ‘synhedrion’, they are described as ‘hypaspists’ who were not part of the ‘synhedrion’,only their chiliarchs.

You have misunderstood. I do not claim that hoi amph' auton hetairoi refers to the synhedrion of Alexander nor that Alexander sent his synhedrion to take the hill. What I have written is that if - a substantial if - this ever forms part of some technical term – delineating some sub group – it likely refers to Alexander’s synhedrion. The example used being that of Babylon where he sits, obviously taking “council”, making wholesale changes to the Macedonian military.

Pelion is a different matter. Alexander advances with the phalanx in a wedge formation, halts and then sends his force to commandeer the hill. I have not claimed that he sends his synhedrion only the Somatophylakes (the “Seven”) and the Companion cavalry amph’ auton ('around' him). This latter I have argued to be members of the ile basilikoi, of which there cannot have been a full compliment for only 200 horse are posted to each wing. Thus Demaratos, at Granikos, is of the ile basilikoi and amphi the king. And this is logical as the king is part of the charge as Arrian’s text makes plain.

34 Ceterum, rex, equos decem habui: e quibus Antiphanes octo iam distribuerat iis, qui amiserant suos, omnino duos ipse habebam: quos cum vellet abducere homo superbissimus, certe iniquissimus,nisi pedes militare vellem, retinere cogebar.
‘As a matter of fact, Sire, I had ten horses, of which Antiphanes had already taken eight to be distributed to those who had lost theirs and I myself had but two left in all; when that most insolent man, at least the most unfair, wished to lead these away too, I was forced to retain them lest I be forced to soldier on foot.’

This is a better translation than ‘fight on foot’ in this context I think. Surely, these horses were for transport rather than action; Amyntas does not want to walk to his battles but ride there. This would be the same case as those HHAA at Pelion, the army is withdrawing so they are taking their mounts along with them probably led by grooms (I do not think these, nor armour bearers would be ‘hetairoi’)

To “soldier” on foot rather than to “fight on foot” is a Caucasus mountain from a Pelion molehill. Amyntas is complaining that he will be forced to serve on foot rather than on horseback; drawing more from it than that is to push the evidence rather too far. Clearly, if he has to walk to battle he has to fight on foot. I do not see this as evidence that hypaspists - the agema or another posited sub-unit thereof - rode to battle and then dismounted to take their place in the battle line. The communis opinio is that the taxiarch commanded from horseback rather than within the phalanx where he could see little and do little.

Amyntas demands the accoutrements of a hypaspist because he has served as one else he hardly ask for such. As such his evidence is to be taken seriously. That this is evidence for serving within a sub-unit of that corps is, I agree, indicated by reference to Philip’s guard on the day of his murder where Perdikkas, Attalos, Pausanias and Leonnatus are alternately called somatophylakes , doruphoros and Pausanias ton hetairon ). This unit is just as convincingly the agema as the conjectured hoi amph' auton hetairoi (one might note, without pushing too far, that Josephus also drops the amph’ auton if the latter is true). The evidence (such as it may be) favours the agema for Neoptolemus, scion of the royal house of Epeiros, is also termed ton hetairon without the addition of amph’ auton. More germane is Seleukos who, at Hydaspes, is described as ton heatairon. He is aboard ship with “half the hypaspists”. Whatever Arrian’s source meant it obviously cannot be 1,500 or 2,000 and near certainly refers to a sub unit (ditto Tyre). Seleukos is later recorded as commanding the “royal hypaspists” (which I would take as a reference to the agema in this rather garbled instance). If these are the conjectured hoi amph' auton hetairoi then Seleukos commands a unit of 50 odd in the battle line.

Back to Tyre where the crucial point is, indeed, the fact “that Alexander’s force goes onto the ship ‘hypaspists’ and becomes ‘hetairoi’ on the wall”. Again, this argues for a sub unit of the hypaspists and Arrian names that unit interchangeably as somatophylakes, hetairoi, agema, agema to basilikon. Nothing substantiates the conjectured loss of amph’ auton from the text and the references to others as ton hetairon (above as well as Leonnatus at Arr. 2.12.5) and the fact that Pelion and Granikos, to my mind, do not refer to a distinct unit would argue otherwise. Other notations do not favour a very small elite sub unit. The Aornos rock assault sees Alexander take some 700 of “the somatophylakes and the hypaspists” with him. Breakdown of those numbers is likely impossible but it argues for a larger sub-unit than 40-50.

These ‘hetairoi’ cannot be the ‘synhedrion’, they are described as ‘hypaspists’ who were not part of the ‘synhedrion’,only their chiliarchs. The usual explanation is that all the hypaspistai were enrolled into ‘hetaireteia’ with the King, it being unthinkable that the common pikeman would be, as a ‘pezhetairos’ and his superior, the Hypaspist, not.

Hence, in my view, why Arrian refers to the hypaspists at Granikos as hoi hupaspistai ton hetairon.

This stems from a modern desire for a technical name for everything. I have argued elsewhere that the evidence tends to show that the ‘pezhetairoi’ were an elite body; nothing points to the generality of the foot being ‘companions’, one might ask what kudos there would be in an honour shared by one and all?

Here lies the seeds and potting mix of another digression. Arrian does, indeed, refer to the entirety of the phalanx as pezetairous at 1.28.3. Yes, this is only the once and afterwards he uses asthetairoi for what seems certainly half the phalanx (the discussion is, of course, Bosworth ‘Asthetairoi’, CQ 23/2, 1973, 245-253). The natural conclusion that the other half are pezhetairoi – even more so if Arrian’s full description of the hypaspists as hoi hupaspistai ton hetairon is correct for objections of the hypaspists not being “companions” of the king evaporate. That aside the hypaspists, as the guard troops, clearly will have been aware of their status.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that part of the question is, what became of an age expired Page? So far as I can see Xenophon proposes a longer pagehood with the graduates moving on to unit command and Paralus has yet to commit.

Not quite. I’ve noted my general agreement with Heckel. Page goes to immediate foot guard of the king and then on to positions within either the army or cavalry.

Arrian did not have a clue about HHAA he merely transcribes the words of his source, both Ptolemy and Aristoboulos did understand as would their Macedonian audience.

And, in my opinion, that would be because there was nothing to understand! Arrian’s source describes the hegemones and hetairoi “around” or “attending” the king and Arrian uses the words in their qualifying sense. His source does not refer to an elite group and nor does Arrian.

[Xenophon]

I don’t think this rather long post advances the case that HHAA refers to an organised unit, a sub-unit of the Hypaspists, which is what I think you were putting forward previously.
Agesilaos wrote:

“I do not think I am guilty of even implying that each use of ‘amph’auton’ denotes a separate sub unit.....
... there was a body to which the Pages progressed and of which Philip was a member and that the phrase HHAA in Arrian may be that unit.

This strikes me as somewhat confused, and indeed contradictory. Are you saying that ‘amph’auton’ is not a unit/sub-unit of the Hypaspists? You then go on to say that it is ?

“Suppose, instead it was the uniform of what I am calling HHAA, an inner Guard from whose ranks we can deduce at least three taxiarchs came (Amyntas, on this evidence and both Perdikkas and Attalos, Amyntas’ brother, on the grounds that they were on duty when Pausanias slew Philip II and in the company of a third noble youth, Leonattos).

Why suppose this? We are specifically told his ‘clothes and accoutrements’ ( a better translation than uniform – see page 1 of this thread for full discussion of this point) are those of a ‘Hypaspist’ ( not some other purely hypothetical unit). See page 1 also for the reasons that Amyntas wanted to remind his judges of his loyal status, appear as a free man rather than a condemned criminal, and subtly point out Alexander’s attitude, since he granted this boon. We can’t tell either what capacity he had previously served in the Hypaspists, but likely an officer of some sort, and probably in the Agema for the assassination reference.
We can deduce nothing about a supposed unit referred to as HHAA, with its own uniform. It is no surprise that taxiarchs are appointed by Alexander ‘from those around him’ – his entourage of those close to him, and indeed these senior officers are part of the ‘synedroi’.

“ He would then be emphasising his links with the other commanders and his former meritorious (he was given a phalanx brigade to command, after all) service in ensuring the safety of the old King, a double-edged weapon, as it would appeal both to a sense of regime loyalty and old guard nostalgia.

Just so, and we can read no more than this into the description – see page 1 for more on this – there is not even the slightest hint of some sort of unit described by the vague term HHAA.

“That hypaspists might have horses appears from Curtius’ account of the trial of Amyntas son of Andromenes, who is charged with refusing to surrender the last of his string of horses and says in his defence ‘What am I expected to do fight on foot?!’ This, after he has requested the uniform of an ‘armiger’, which in every other case can be shown to signify a Hypaspist.

Shome confusion here, shurely ? ( as “Private Eye” might say )
Amyntas was serving as a ‘taxiarch’, or ‘hegemon ton taxeion’, roughly speaking, a Brigadier-General and led a significant portion of the phalanx at this time. Hence him being mounted. ( commanders needed to be mounted to be able to see over the heads of those they commanded). He had not served as a Hypaspist/somatophylake for many years – so no connection between horses and Hypaspists, which you then seem to agree.....

“This is quite an odd passage as Amyntas was a phalanx commander and neither expected to fight on horseback nor a Hypaspist; and it is frequently claimed that it is influenced by the Trial of Marcus Terentius of which we have an account in Tacitus ‘Annales’ Book VI.

I shan’t comment on what follows, for I can see no possible connection between Tacitus’ passage and the Amyntas trial. The mere fact that Terentius is an ‘equite’ is no relation to fighting on horseback, or even being mounted, for Roman ‘equites’ of that time were no more cavalry than a modern knight, Sir Bill Bloggs, is. In both cases it is a mere social title. So I would agree this...

“However, in Curtius the testimony of Antiphanes is central and he is designated ‘scriba equorum’ a Greek office rather than a Roman one which shows that the horse issue is not a graft but was germane to the original source.

Why raise a lengthy ‘straw man’ point, only to knock it down yourself ? Puzzling!

“I suggest that the evidence from Curtius demonstrates that there was a body to which the Pages progressed and of which Philip was a member and that the phrase HHAA in Arrian may be that unit.

There appears to be no evidence at all that those referred to somewhat vaguely as “those companions closest to Alexander”, or “those about Alexander” was ever a specific unit, nor that graduating pages progressed to a specific unit of any sort.

“The crucial point about Tyre is that Alexander’s force goes onto the ship ‘hypaspists’ and becomes ‘hetairoi’ on the wall.

Like many Greek words (and English ones for that matter), ‘hetairoi’ has a generic meaning as well as a technical specialist one in respect of the Macedonian army, depending on context. I would suggest in this context it simply has the generic meaning of roughly “those accompanying Alexander” or “those closest about the King “ literally, onto the wall ? ( who happen to be the Hypaspists who accompany him on the ship). The expression also allows for those about Alexander who may not have been Hypaspists, but members of his entourage, as well as his accompanying Hypaspists.

“I have argued elsewhere that the evidence tends to show that the ‘pezhetairoi’ were an elite body; nothing points to the generality of the foot being ‘companions’, one might ask what kudos there would be in an honour shared by one and all?

You mean like the honorific Makedones to refer to all the citizen males, shared by all ? Surely the point in granting the title ‘pezhetairoi’ was so that all the army could be unified as companions of Alexander? ( and I accept that there is some doubt regarding titles such as pezhetairoi and asthetairoi, but that is a different debate.)

“Which only leaves the Somatophylakes, of whom all Seven may not have been present, and a vacuum where the ‘hetairoi’ stand, the use of shields precludes them being the Companion Cavalry. This is a gap only an elite body from within the hypaspists can plausibly fill.

We are told that Alexander sent a mix of ‘somatophylakes’ – probably in the context referring to hyspaspists of the Agema - and Companions/ hetairoi :-
“As Alexander saw only a few of the enemy still occupying a ridge, along which lay his route, he ordered his body-guards/somatophylakes and Companions to take their shields, mount their horses, and ride to the hill; and when they reached it, if those who had occupied the
position awaited them, he said that half of them were to leap from their horses, and to fight as foot- soldiers, being mingled with the cavalry.”

This looks rather like one of those ‘ad hoc’ forces referred to earlier – a mix of hypaspists with shields, mounted for the occasion, and unshielded Companion cavalry, though this is not quite what Arrian says, perhaps due to the fact that cavalry were shielded in his day. As you say, Arrian would not have a perfect grasp of the use of terminology in his sources, as we have referred to earlier.

Since only ‘somatophylakes’and ‘hetairoi’ are referred to, I don’t see how one can logically conclude that the body was neither (rather than both) but instead solely an un-named elite body from within the hypaspists ? That is to conjure up something not in the source account altogether.

[Paralus]

Why suppose this? We are specifically told his ‘clothes and accoutrements’ ( a better translation than uniform – see page 1 of this thread for full discussion of this point) are those of a ‘Hypaspist’ ( not some other purely hypothetical unit). See page 1 also for the reasons that Amyntas wanted to remind his judges of his loyal status, appear as a free man rather than a condemned criminal, and subtly point out Alexander’s attitude, since he granted this boon. We can’t tell either what capacity he had previously served in the Hypaspists, but likely an officer of some sort, and probably in the Agema for the assassination reference.

I agree: Amyntas had clearly been a member of the hypaspists and, as a son of the noble Andromenes, that will have been in the agema. Little more can really be read into the passage unless it is 'forced'. He demands the accoutrements of the position so as his testimony comes from one entrusted with the position of guard of the king. That necessarily implies that these troops were easily recognisable by the "accoutrements" of the position (clothing and armour as you say). This is to be expected of a guard troop and one who also acted as camp "police".

I do not think that we can assume his service was as an officer. Nothing at the assassination of Philip (or most other notations in the sources bar Hephaestion, Admetus and Seleucus who are named as hegemones) indicates any rank. The terminolgy employed by the sources is confused. The guards are described variously by Diodorus and Plutarch as doryphoroi or somatophylakes.To add to the confusion Josephus describes Pausanias as ton hetairon. As he is not describing pausanias in spatial terms there is no need for amph' auton. Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus are of the agema and so, almost certainly, is the young Pausanias. The only possibility for some inference that the status of officer applies is Philip promoting Pausanias in honour amongst the bodyguards (somatophulakian proegen auton entimos). He cannot have been given an officer's position amongst the Seven and the text does not claim he was made an officer of the agema - just 'honoured' (along with gifts). It is perhaps more likely he'd been promoted from page to agema? I find it difficult to think of Attalus (he off in Asia) and his mates buggering a member of the king's agema. I find it impossible that such could be visited upon one the Somatophylakes (Seven).

[Paralus]

“Which only leaves the Somatophylakes, of whom all Seven may not have been present, and a vacuum where the ‘hetairoi’ stand, the use of shields precludes them being the Companion Cavalry. This is a gap only an elite body from within the hypaspists can plausibly fill.

We are told that Alexander sent a mix of ‘somatophylakes’ – probably in the context referring to hyspaspists of the Agema - and Companions/ hetairoi :-
“As Alexander saw only a few of the enemy still occupying a ridge, along which lay his route, he ordered his body-guards/somatophylakes and Companions to take their shields, mount their horses, and ride to the hill; and when they reached it, if those who had occupied the
position awaited them, he said that half of them were to leap from their horses, and to fight as foot- soldiers, being mingled with the cavalry.”

This looks rather like one of those ‘ad hoc’ forces referred to earlier – a mix of hypaspists with shields, mounted for the occasion, and unshielded Companion cavalry, though this is not quite what Arrian says, perhaps due to the fact that cavalry were shielded in his day. As you say, Arrian would not have a perfect grasp of the use of terminology in his sources, as we have referred to earlier.

That remains a possibility. For it to be so, the somatophulaxi that Alexander takes with him to assault those on the hill are hypaspists and the agema at that. Throughout the entire narrative of the campaigns prior to Asia, Arrian consistently uses agema for the king’s immediate foot guard when Alexander makes use of it (1.1.11, 8.3, 8.4). The first equivocal use of somatophylax is in Asia when he sends Ptolemy son of Seleukos home with the newlyweds (1.24.1). Arrian unhelpfully describes this bloke as “one of the royal bodyguards” ( hena tōn sōmatophulakōn tōn basilikōn. He is selected because he, along with the other officers, was newly married. He is often assumed to be one the Seven but that cannot be for, as Heckel observed, he returned and died demoted to the level of taxiarch at Issos. Far more likely is that he was promoted from the agema to ‘battalion’ command. I add this to attested agema officers.

Arrian describes the line of retreat for Alexander as something of a defile, created by a “lofty hill / mountain” on the one side and a river passing through thick woods on the other. The crossing point (the army had to cross the river) was some “four shields” wide. The enemy had occupied a hill prior to the crossing point. Alexander needed them removed for the army to file through in a “four shield” column and deploy, once across, into order to the left. There is no mention that Alexander mounts infantry (as Arrian explicitly states on all other occasions) here in this attack. Arrian does not mention that he took the agema as he does on other occasions when Alexander intends to fight on foot. Indeed, after the attack succeeds he has the hypaspists cross the river at the head of the army. Whilst they do so the enemy, who’d taken up positions on the slopes of the “lofty mountain”, charge down to take the Macedonian column in the rear. Arrian then has Alexander attack them from his just taken hill with the troops he’d taken. This must be a mounted attack and afterwards he crosses the river with the Agrianians and the Archers with whom he protects the army in its crossing.

Given that “his hypaspists” lead the army across the river I’d have to conclude that the hill assault force were all cavalry. I think it the more likely that these are the Seven and nobles from the ile basilikoi. I think we can all agree that these men possessed shields and that they used them when required to fight on foot (Alexander hardly leads the agema without such). It is these men that Alexander orders to “take up their shields” and charge the hill with him. Alexander then wants mobile troops with him and so orders the Agrianians and archers to him. The hypaspists are instructed to lead the army across the river.

Nothing conclusively eliminates the agema being ordered to mount (or other foot) and it could well be argued that Alexander would have taken his infantry guard on this assault as he was prepared to fight on foot. Arrian does not say so even though he is clear about mounted foot in all other attestations.

I agree there is no reason to posit an otherwise unknown elite unit to satisfy this notation. Again, I believe that amph’ auton merely indicates the troops / hetairoi in his immediate vicinity. These will be cavalry and members of the ile basilikoi as we should naturally expect

[Xenophon]

Having re-read previous passages, re-read Arrian, and given the matter some thought, and whilst the hill taking somatophylakes and hetairoi may just possibly have been an 'ad hoc' force ( if somatophylakes here means the Agema),I am now convinced that Paralus' argument is the far more likely:

Paralus wrote:

Leaving aside notions of dropped text, instances one and two do not, to my mind, indicate a special military unit. For Pelion to do so, one must accept that somatophylakes is here used for the agema of the hypaspists. The notation occurs immediately the phalanx drill and advance has finished - a drill and advance in such tight country that the phalanx is forced to deploy 120 deep. If the somatophylakes are hypaspists whence comes their horses that they mount? There is hardly room in this scenario for them to be close at hand. Alexander has placed 200 cavalry on either wing and, at parade drill's end, he proceeds to advance - in that order - until noticing the occupied hilltop. It makes far more logical sense rather than talking about an agema of a petikosiarchy (? insert you favourite number here) with 500 horses in close attendance on an army in battle order, that Arrian is referring to the Seven. That would see the hoi hetairoi amph’auton also as cavalry, both groups of which are ordered to be prepared for fighting on foot. It is implicit that Alexander goes with them – “having seen Alexander’s advance [...] having occupied the hill with his hetairoi” - for it is from the hill, which he has taken, that he then orders the hypaspists and the rest of the infantry to follow across the river.

As Arrian/Paralus points out, the geography here was very cramped indeed, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there was room for a herd of up to 500 horses being driven along, just in case it became necessary to mount the Agema. Militarily too such a situation would have been an invitation to disaster. Rather, I think what we have here is as he says, a couple of hundred cavalry in the van, probably the 'Ile Basilikoi'. Those 'somatophylakes', probably of the seven, around Alexander on that occasion will have been mounted, like the King.
In addition, Arrian speaks of the horses being integral to the force ("their" horses, twice), and also that "half" the force/unit should dismount and fight on foot if needs be, rather than saying that the hypaspists/Agema should dismount to support the 'hetairoi' cavalry, which implies a single unit here, all cavalry, divided into halves.

That remains a possibility. For it to be so, the somatophulaxi that Alexander takes with him to assault those on the hill are hypaspists and the agema at that. Throughout the entire narrative of the campaigns prior to Asia, Arrian consistently uses agema for the king’s immediate foot guard when Alexander makes use of it (1.1.11, 8.3, 8.4). The first equivocal use of somatophylax is in Asia when he sends Ptolemy son of Seleukos home with the newlyweds

That equivocal use of the term 'somatophlakes' only occurring after the invasion of Asia may or may not be significant ( possibly being co-incidental), but as it stands it too favours the meaning here being a reference to the seven.

Additionally, a couple of sentences later we have:
"Alexander with the Companions then occupied the hill." (abandoned by the enemy).The force in question is now described as the Companions only, which fits the scenario of a single Companion cavalry force, amongst whom the seven and other members of Alexander's entourage fought. This would hardly be the case if even a part of the Agema - even just a couple of hundred - made up half the force or more.

There is no mention that Alexander mounts infantry (as Arrian explicitly states on all other occasions) here in this attack. Arrian does not mention that he took the agema as he does on other occasions when Alexander intends to fight on foot. Indeed, after the attack succeeds he has the hypaspists cross the river at the head of the army. Whilst they do so the enemy, who’d taken up positions on the slopes of the “lofty mountain”, charge down to take the Macedonian column in the rear. Arrian then has Alexander attack them from his just taken hill with the troops he’d taken. This must be a mounted attack and afterwards he crosses the river with the Agrianians and the Archers with whom he protects the army in its crossing.

Given that “his hypaspists” lead the army across the river I’d have to conclude that the hill assault force were all cavalry. I think it the more likely that these are the Seven and nobles from the ile basilikoi. I think we can all agree that these men possessed shields and that they used them when required to fight on foot (Alexander hardly leads the agema without such).

And I am now convinced that the above is far more likely, for a number of reasons such as those I've given, in addition to those put forward by Paralus, than the suggestion that this was an 'ad hoc' force involving the 'Agema' of the Hypaspists.......

Some trivial points:

Whilst agreeing that the nobles of the Companions/Hetairoi, could fight on foot, or in an assault with shields as necessary, they would of necessity have to have had 'squires'/servants to carry these - 'hypaspists' literally - and probably other gear. Indeed, the Roman Frontinus tells us that Philip reduced the 'tail' of the Macedonian army, inter alia by restricting cavalrymen to one attendant each ( Front. IV.1.6. 'singulos calones' lit: military servant ). A single servant would have to have been something of a 'dogsbody' - mainly groom, hypaspist/shield bearer when required, cook, bottle washer etc.
Nevertheless, the fact that the cavalry (on foot) did use shields and had to have had 'hypaspists' to carry them explains the use of the title for Alexander's Foot Guards. After the King's Companion cavalry, the 'hypaspists' would have been the closest footmen to Alexander, being in close proximity to their masters, hence the adoption of the name for the King's Foot Guard, becoming the King's 'shield-bearers', and thus indicating they were as close to the King as the 'Hetairoi's 'hypaspists were to their masters...... Of course the original servants carried on as before.

On a general note on titles, 'hoi hetairoi amph’auton' and it's variations including 'tois amph' hauton hēgemosin' are sufficiently diverse to be descriptions of the group 'about the King' on any given occasion, but nowhere near precise enough to be variations on the title of a unit, not to mention such a description being too vague to form a title. The whole military ethos throughout history requires units, if only for morale reasons, to have precise titles - whether official or nicknames, and on this ground alone it is hard to accept HHAA and it's many variations as being a unit title rather than a literal description of those 'about Alexander' as being his entourage at the time.

On the point of Amyntas' actual rank, and whether he was a 'former' or current hypaspist, it is worth pointing out that throughout history, and even today when officers are supposedly promoted on merit, a disproportionate number of senior officers and generals are promoted from Guard units. Generally too these men, whilst promoted and posted elsewhere as, say, a Brigadier general, retain their 'Guard' status by simultaneously holding an 'honorary' rank, such as 'Colonel of Grenadier Guards'. While a nominally inferior rank, it is the latter which is of social significance. Thus, whilst Amyntas was a 'Taxiarch', it is possible he still retained some more junior rank as a 'Hypaspist', and was thus entitled to the 'uniform' of such........

[agesilaos]

I have only a short time so I cannot answer all these points but will address a few and reply more fully later.

Off the top of my head I cannot think of a single instance of the Companion cavalry being deployed on foot with shields, nor do they appear to have been followed about the battlefield by a gaggle of servants lugging shields and presumably dorai or javelins to replace their xysta. I am not suggesting these are the whole agema, only the special unit which would number fifty odd rather than 2-500. This is hardly a herd but would be enough to see off a small force of demoralised Illyrians. That they are only reffered to as 'hetairoi' once the hill is captured is just the author dropping the reference to the Somatophylakes. Alexander frequently mounts infantry but never asks the cavalry to fight on foot elsewhere, a force that can act efficiently on foot and mounted suits the inner guard of graduated Pages, nobles to a man and likely possessed of their own horses.

Taxiarchs probably did not fight mounted, communis opinio or not, aside from the fact that they would not be able to see through the forest of raised sarissai, the taxiarch Ptolemy was killed at Issos fighting in the front rank and surely on foot.

Stretching pagehood to 19 is contrary to the, admittedly scant evidence, pagehood ran through the stage called 'meirakioneia', which coincides with the age of sexual availability and ends with the 'ephebeia', when such relations are deemed innapropriate, at least in Athens,nor is combat mentioned in either list of their duties...later