Neoptolemos: the invisible Archihypaspist

[agesilaos]

In other sources it is usually used in the specific ( or generic if you like ) sense of "largest individual infantry unit"....

Nope, but the beast is up from the depths... 'if we stick another barrel on him...nothing goes down with three on him.'

'Taxis' implies nothing about the size of the unit, nor its position in any organisational chart; the only thing it means is that the group has been organised here is LSJ

τάξις , εως, Ion. ιος, ἡ, (τάσσω)
A.arranging, arrangement:
I. in military sense:
1. drawing up in rank and file, order or disposition of an army, Th.5.68 (init.), 7.5, etc.; τὰ ἀμφὶ τάξεις rules for it, tactics, X.An.2.1.7; “τ. καὶ ἀντίταξις” Phld.Piet.12.
2. battle array, order of battle, “κατὰ τάξιν” Hdt.8.86; “ἐν τάξει” Th.4.72, etc.; ἐς τάξιν καθίστασθαι, ἀνάγειν, ib.93, Ar.Av.400 (anap.); ἵνα μὴ διασπασθείη ἡ τ. Th.5.70; of ships, “ἀποπλῶσαι ἐκ τῆς τάξιος” Hdt.6.14.
3. a single rank or line of soldiers, ἐπὶ τάξιας ὀλίγας γίγνεσθαι to be drawn up a few lines deep, ib.111, cf. 9.31; “ἐλύθησαν αἱ τ. τῶν Περσῶν” Pl.La.191c.
4. body of soldiers, A.Pers.298, S.OC1311; esp. at Athens, the quota of infantry furnished by each φυλή (cf. “ταξίαρχος” 11), Lys.16.16; but freq. of smaller bodies, company, X.An. 1.2.16, 6.5.11, etc.; ἱππέων τ. ib.1.8.21; so of ships, squadron, A.Pers.380: generally, band, company, φιλία γὰρ ἥδε τ., of the chorus, Id.Pr.128 (lyr.); “ἐμφανίσας μοι ἐν ᾗ ἔσομαι τάξει” PCair.Zen. 409.6 (iii B.C.).
b. esp. a contingent of 128 men, Ascl.Tact.2.8, Arr.Tact.10.2, Ael.Tact.9.3.
c. in late Gr., membership of the militia palatina (cf. ταξεώτης), Lib.Or.27.17.
5. post or place in the line of battle, ἀξιεύμεθα ταύτης τῆς τ. Hdt.9.26, cf. 27; “ἐν τῇ τ. εἶχε ἑωυτόν” Id.1.82; μένειν ἐν τῇ ἑωυτοῦ τ. Id.3.158; “τ. φυλάξων” E.Rh. 664; “ἡ τ. φυλακτέα” X.Cyr.5.3.43; “ᾗ ἕκαστος τὴν τ. εἶχεν” Id.An. 4.3.29; “τῆς πρώτης τ. τεταγμένος” Lys.14.11, cf. Th.5.68 (fin.); ἐκλιπόντας τὴν τ. Hdt.5.75, cf. 9.21; λείπειν τὴν τ. And.1.74, Pl.Ap. 29a, D.13.34, 15.32, Aeschin.3.159, etc.; “παραχωρεῖν τῆς τάξεως” D.3.36, etc.; but ἡγεμὼν ἔξω τάξεων officer on the unattached list, Arch.Pap.3.188, cf. Sammelb.599, OGI69 (Coptos); so οἱ ἔξω τάξεως staff-officers, aides-de-camp, D.S.19.22.
II. generally, arrangement, order, “ἡμερῶν τ. εἰς μηνῶν περιόδους” Pl.Lg.809d; ἡ τῶν ὅλων τ. X.Cyr.8.7.22; disposition, “τῆς ψυχῆς” Gorg.Hel.14: Rhet., disposition, opp. λέξις, Arist.Rh.1414a29; “ἡ τ. τοῦ λόγου” Aeschin.3.205, cf. D.18.2, Sor.1.18, Gal.Libr.Ord.1; ὕστερον τῇ τ. D.3.15, cf. Gal.6.68, 16.533; ἐν τ. εἶναι, = μένειν, Pl.Tht.153e; “τ. καὶ ἠρεμία” Arist.EE1218a23; “εἰ τὰ γυμνάσια ἔχοι τὴν τ. ἐνταῦθα” Id.Pol.1331a37; difft. from θέσις or mere position, Id.Ph.188a24, Thphr.Sens. 60 (θέσεως τ. Gal.6.194; τ. θέσεως is dub. l. in 16.709); ἡ κατὰ τ. τινὰ βασιλεία, opp. ἀόριστος τυραννίς, Arist.Rh.1366a2; καὶ τοῦτο κατὰ τ., ἕως . . and so on, until . . , Sor.2.62.
2. order, regularity, “εἰς τ. ἄγειν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας” Pl.Ti.30a; “τ. καὶ κόσμος” Id.Grg.504a; οὔτε νόμος οὔτε τ. Id.Lg.875c, cf. R.587a; “τ. περιόδου” Epicur.Ep.2p.42U.; “διὰ τάξεως γίγνεσθαι” Pl.Lg.780a; τάξιν ἔχειν to be regular, Thphr. HP3.9.6; ἐν τάξει in an orderly manner, Pl.Lg.637e; so “τάξει” SIG741.12 (Nysa, i B.C., rendering of Lat. ordine).
3. ordinance, “κατὰ τὴν τ. τοῦ νόμου” Pl.Lg.925b; παρὰ τὴν τοῦ νομοθέτου τ. Id.Plt. 305c, etc.
b. prescription, τὴν τοῦ λυσιτελοῦντος τοῖς σώμασι ποιεῖσθαι τ. Id.Plt.294e; recipe, cj. in PHolm.2.2.
4. τ. τοῦ φόρου assessment of tribute, X.Ath.3.5, cf. IG12.63.2, al.; τῶν ὀφειλημάτων περὶ τῆς πράξεως ib.57.13, cf. Lex ap.D.24.45; τ. τῆς ὑδρείας a ration of water, Pl.Lg.844b.
5. political order, constitution, τ. Κρητική, Λακωνική, etc., Arist.Pol.1271b40, cf. Ath.3.1, al.
III. metaph. from 1.5, post, rank, position, station, “ὑπὸ χθόνα τάξιν ἔχουσα” A.Eu. 396 (lyr.); ἡ τῶν ἀκοντιζόντων τ. Antipho 3.2.7; ἰδία τοῦ βίου τ. Isoc. 6.2; ἀνὴρ τῆς πρώτης τ. CIG2767.4 (Aphrodisias); οἰκέτου τ. D.18.258, cf. PGnom.43, 196 (ii A.D.), Mitteis Chr.372 v 18 (ii A.D.); “τ. ἔχοντος ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ” Sammelb.6674.10 (ii A.D.); ἐν τῇ Θετταλῶν τάξει ranging herself with the T., D.18.63; ἐν ἐχθροῦ τ. as an enemy, Id.20.81, etc.; ἐν ἐπηρείας τάξει by way of insult, Id.18.13; ἀδύνατον εἶχεν τ. occupied an impossible position, i.e. was unthinkable, Hyp.(?) Oxy.1607.60; τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἑλόμενον τάξιν πολιτεύεσθαι championship of your cause, D.18.138, cf. Ep.3.15; ἐγὼ τὴν τῆς εὐνοίας τ. . . οὐκ ἔλιπον post of patriotism, Id.18.173.
IV. order, class of men, X.Mem. 2.1.7; function, D.13.19.
2. list, register, ὅπως ταγῇ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἐν τῇ τῶν τετελευτηκότων τ. Sammelb.7359.15, cf. 7404.6, PSI9.1064.38, 10.1141.10 (all ii A.D.); “ἡ τ. τῶν κατοχίμων” PTeb.318.21 (ii A.D.); “τ. λαογράφων” PLond.2.182b2 (ii A.D.).
3. account, “ἰδίας τάξεως” POxy.61.8 (iii A.D.), cf. PLond.3.1107.26,30 (iii A.D.).
4. payment, ib.966.3 (iv A.D., cf. Arch.Pap.4.533).
5. category of land, κατοικικὴ τ. BGU379.12 (i A.D.), cf. Wilcken Chr.341.15 (ii A.D.), etc.
V. reduction of hernia by manipulation, Gal.14.781.
VI. degree of heating power in drugs, Id.11.571,787, cf. Gorg.Hel. 14.
VII. treatise, ἐν τῇ ὑστέρᾳ τ. Ps.-Democr. ap. Zos.Alch.p.153 B.
VIII. fixed point of time, term, “κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἢ κατά τινα ἄλλην τ. ἢ χρόνον” Arist.Pol.1261a34; end (or perh. date fixed for the end), “μέχρι τάξεως αὐτῆς τῆς τρύγης” Sammelb.5810.15 (iv A.D.).

That the word has no meaning beyond 'an organised body' or 'unit' is demonstrable from Arrian's application of it to units that are certainly smaller than and lower in the pecking order than the phalanx units like the archer or hippokontistai, at the Granikos he even uses it of the ilai of the Companions simply for variation, he uses ile too. 'Taxis' never meant anything as specific as a phalanx 'battalion' even the theoreticians use it for a much lower level unit, eight files.

I notice that 'lochos' is creeping in too, in Alexander's army the word applies only to the allied or mercenary infantry or the reformed cavalry units when the ilai were split in two

[Paralus]

In other sources it is usually used in the specific ( or generic if you like ) sense of "largest individual infantry unit"....

Nope, but the beast is up from the depths...

And has reared its head on the wrong thread! I would respond but that would only give life to the beast in the wrong universe...

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
2.Plutarch tells us that Neoptolemus was 'archihypaspist' after the death of Alexander.

He tells his audience that Neoptolemus was 'archihypasist' "after the death of Alexander".

It maters not that you ascribe this view to Plutarch because it is your view of what he has written and your continued defence of this view indicates your certainty in the matter.You continue to highlight a single phrase in a near religious fashion (it is Sunday after all) - after Alexander's death - and trumpet this as absolute proof that Neoptolemos' appointment occurred after Alexander's death.

Now you tell me with certainty what my views are, despite my specifically saying otherwise in the very post you are addressing ?

Just because I post Plutarch's view twice, in two different contexts ( firstly summarising the evidence, and secondly agreeing with you that the reference to 'archihypapist' is an interpolation by Plutarch, and clearly not related to him then quoting Neoptolemos.) is not 'trumpeting' anything in a 'near religious fashion', and such denigrating emotive language should have no place here. It is you who are 'certain' that your views are correct, whilst I simply that say when all the evidence is viewed, on balance of probability it is unlikely that Neoptolemus was ever appointed 'archihypaspist' by Alexander. The term, occurring only here this once may even be an invention of Plutarch or his source.

For your part, you don't even address the fact that not only is Neoptolemos not referred to as commander of all the Hypaspists as successor to Nicanor in any of our main sources ( which is itself strange), but there is no reference to such a command at all after Nicanor - only individual chiliarchies - such as Antiochus having his own and two other chiliarchies under command at Arrian IV.30.6. If there was an overall commander, why isn't he in command, for these 3 chiliarchies are all the Hypaspists bar the Agema ?

Instead, you are 'certain' that he was appointed by Alexander to a rank that probably didn't exist, on the basis of a single ambiguous sentence of Plutarch, and but for that sentence we would doubtless accept that there was no overall commander after Nicanor. To interpret that ambiguity as referring to when N. said his bon mot as you do sets it against our other sources who make no mention of N. or even such a position. To interpret it as referring to N. being 'archihypaspist' after Alexander's death is consistent with our other evidence. Whilst we cannot be certain, the latter seems more probable and logical, does it not ?

I shan't address your lengthy but unconvincing justification of your view because, as you rightly say, it is all about Eumenes - only the sentence in question is relevant as to when N. became 'archihypaspist' - if indeed he ever did, given that such a rank didn't exist in Alexander's day. ( see Agesilaos' post on phrases used for the Commander Nicanor)

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

Nikanor is never styled archihypaspist but Arrian uses a periphrasis to describe his rank

book 1, chapter 14:ii ... ἐχόμενοι δὲ τούτων ἐτάχθησαν οἱ ὑπασπισταὶ τῶν ἑταίρων, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Νικάνωρ ὁ Παρμενίωνος:
book 2, chapter 8: iii... πρὸς τῷ ὄρει τῶν πεζῶν τό τε ἄγημα καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστάς, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Νικάνωρ ὁ Παρμενίωνος,
book 3, chapter 11:ix ... πρῶτον τὸ ἄγημα ἐτέτακτο τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ οἱ ἄλλοι ὑπασπισταί: ἡγεῖτο δὲ αὐτῶν Νικάνωρ ὁ Παρμενίωνος:
book 3, chapter 25:iv .... Νικάνωρ δὲ ὁ Παρμενίωνος ὁ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ἄρχων τετελευτήκει ἤδη νόσῳ


Since these phrases describe the role of Archihypaspist it would not be unreasonable to suppose that such was Nikanor’s actual rank.

So if the term existed in Arrian's sources, why is it not used instead of the phrases you refer to ? Why only once, by Plutarch, some 400 years later ? It is quite possible that he invented the word. I would say that given the absence of the word/title, Nicanor never held such a title.

Plutarch can be read two ways

[3] διὸ καὶ Νεοπτολέμου τοῦ ἀρχιυπασπιστοῦ μετὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου τελευτὴν λέγοντος ὡς αὐτὸς μὲν ἀσπίδα καὶ λόγχην, Εὐμενὴς δὲ γραφεῖον ἔχων καὶ πινακίδιον ἠκολούθει, κατεγέλων οἱ Μακεδόνες, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καλῶν τὸν Εὐμενῆ καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν γάμον οἰκειότητος ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως εἰδότες ἀξιωθέντα. Βαρσίνην γὰρ τὴν Ἀρταβάζου πρώτην ἐν Ἀσίᾳ γνοὺς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, ἐξ ἧς υἱὸν ἔσχεν Ἡρακλέα, τῶν ταύτης ἀδελφῶν Πτολεμαίῳ μὲν Ἀπάμαν, Εὐμενεῖ δὲ Βαρσίνην ἐξέδωκεν, ὅτε καὶ τὰς ἄλλας Περσίδας διένειμε καὶ συνῴκισε τοῖς ἑταίροις.


‘meta thn Alexandrou teleuthn’ – after the death of Alexander might look back to ‘tou archihpaspistou’ but more naturally looks forward to contextualise ‘legontas’, ie he said this after Alexander’s death.

Notice the lack of commas in Greek, which as I pointed out earlier, makes it even more ambiguous in the original. And it is on this ambiguity that Paralus hangs his 'certainty', ignoring other evidence.

The only Hypaspist commander we hear of explicitly is Seleukos and his command is the ‘Hypaspistai Basilikoi’ for those that think the HB were those Hypaspists not in the ‘agema’ this would be a quasi archihypaspist, for my part I mention it to show how little Arrian supplies with regard to the command of the Hypaspists, the individual chiliarchs do not merit a mention.

This is incorrect - see Arrian IV.30.6 mentioned above for example ( Antiochus commands his own and the other two chiliarchies temporarily).

Parmenion had no sons left to inherit Nikanor’s role, unless Philotas fancied a demotion.

Quite right - my mistake. Parmenion's other known son Hector had died accidently in Egypt. I have corrected this, to 'relatives' instead of sons.

I notice that 'lochos' is creeping in too, in Alexander's army the word applies only to the allied or mercenary infantry or the reformed cavalry units when the ilai were split in two

Not according to Curtius V.1.3 :
"those who should have been judged the bravest were each to command a body of 1,000 men - they call them chiliarchae - this being the first time that the forces were divided into that number; for previously there had been 'lochoi/quingenariae cohortes' consisting of 500 men and the prizes of command had not gone to bravery." (Loeb translation by J C Rolfe).

This was at Sittakene - I referred to this passage earlier.

As to the meaning of "Taxis", I agree with Paralus that we are in the wrong thread. I will say only that I don't disagree with any of Agesilaos' post, save that in our sources on Alexander and the Macedonian army the context it is mostly used in is to refer to the 'units' making up the sarissa armed phalanx, as I said previously. ( i.e. definition 4 )

After a whole 2 page thread consisting of many thousands of words concerning a single ambiguous sentence of Plutarch's, are we done yet ? There are so many other more important matters to discuss! I'll leave the last word to one of you two, probably Paralus !

[Paralus]

That last word may be while: my ISP is down at the exchange and so I'm on a 'smartphone' eating up mb with work emails. Cutting a quoted post is rediculously difficult and rsi is about overtake the thumbs.

Xenophon, you seem to have suffered affront; this was not intended. To be clearer, you are 'religious' in your reading of Plutarch; stating with certainty that he means Neoptolomus commanded the hypaspists after Alexander's death. This is what I meant. To be fair, I am 'dogmatic' that the temporal reference is to the barb not the appointment.

Far from 'ignoring' his lack of mention in the sources, I actually raised it. I do not concurr with your reasoning though. As I said very early on: one needs to very wary of the crutch of testis unis testis nullis. If we were to reject all such singular attestations our information would be very poor. Off the top of my head (limited access and servicability!) we would have to reject Ptolemy's murder of Cleomenes; Amphimachus as brother of the king (Arrhidaeus) and, if I recall, Archon as satrap of Babylon. Allying this with an argument from silence compounds matters. We we to apply that elswhere we would reject the war between Antigonus and Seleucus on the complete silence of the sources aside from BCHP 3 alone.

more when I don't need to use a 5cm screen and thumbs!

[agesilaos]

Doh, wrong thread, maybe Amyntoros will move it, I ask for four litres of Old Rosie to be taken into account M'lud.

Yes, I had forgotten Antiochos, but the doubt you raise is undone by reference to Halikarnassos where (I 22) Ptolemy son of Seleukos takes command of Addaios' and Timandros' units which both seem to have been hypaspist chiliarchia, Curtius notwithstanding, no sign of Nikanor. Further comment belongs on another thread.

The period of the early Diadochoi did not attract many historians outside the scope of the period themselves, Hieronymos, Duris and co were contemporary with events, since the subject of this story is Eumenes' besting Neoptolemos it is likely to derive from Hieronymos' detailed account. He would know and likely use the proper terminology, Plutarch would have no motive in inventing a title for Neoptolemos, especially an obscure one. He most likely transcribed what he found in his source and since that would have contemporary meaning it is, almost certainly the office Neoptolemos was known to hold. It then follows that if the reference is to the days of dissension following Alexander's death that he had been appointed before that event by Alexander. Nikanor merits his mentions on the backs of Parmenion and Philotas, he is only described by these two factors, his office and his parentage; Neoptolemos had no conspiratorial brother or unjustly slain father to push him into the spotlight. Continuity of office is, surely, a more likely scenario than abolition for no reason and then an equally mysterious re-institution.

[Paralus]

Yes, I had forgotten Antiochos, but the doubt you raise is undone by reference to Halikarnassos where (I 22) Ptolemy son of Seleukos takes command of Addaios' and Timandros' units which both seem to have been hypaspist chiliarchia, Curtius notwithstanding, no sign of Nikanor.

Agreed. The passage where Antiochos is given his and two other units strongly implies more than three chiliarchies of hypaspists. There is no other attestation of the king giving his entire hypaspist corps to a singular chiliarch. As Bosworth remarks, the only person ever to lead all of the hypaspists is the king. Further, he is unlikely to have set off simply with his agema (be it a pentakosiarchy as I suggest or a chiliarchy) for the Indus. Than we have the argyraspides, to the number of 3,000, at campaign's end. This may well reflect the toll taken over the Afghanistan and Indian campaigns or perhaps these were the original chiliarchies?

Continuity of office is, surely, a more likely scenario than abolition for no reason and then an equally mysterious re-institution.

Absolutely. Further, there is little doubt that Perdiccas was a supporter of Alexander's policies and was close to him. Whilst he was no Hephaestion it is instructive that it is Perdiccas who replaces Hephaestion as Chiliarch and winds up with the king's signet ring (both stonily ignored by Ptolemy who has to begrudgingly record the entrusting of the former Chiliarch's corpse to him and his funeral arrangements). If Alexander saw fit to abolish the office of commander of the hypaspists on political grounds, there is little reason to think that Perdiccas would reverse it after scraping into the regency at Babylon. As I've argued, Perdiccas had enough to concern him without creating another focus point for sedition - the reason we are told Alexander divided the Companion cavalry command.

[agesilaos]

Not according to Curtius V.1.3 :
"those who should have been judged the bravest were each to command a body of 1,000 men - they call them chiliarchae - this being the first time that the forces were divided into that number; for previously there had been 'lochoi/quingenariae cohortes' consisting of 500 men and the prizes of command had not gone to bravery." (Loeb translation by J C Rolfe).

Sorry, forgot to correct this; Curtius mentions only the cohortes quingenariae (and it is chapter 2 iii);

3 Chiliarchas vocabant tunc primum in hunc numerum copiis distributis: namque antea quingenariae cohortes fuerant nec fortitudinis praemia cesserant

Rolfe's note is no evidence, he is thinking of Thukydides' description of the Spartan army at Mantinea, where lochoi are 512 strong (Xenophon the Athenian does not use this term but uses 'mora', another thread there) for units of c.500 in the native Macedonian we should stick to 'pentekosiarchia', not because there is any evidence that that is what they were called but simply given the evidence for 'hekatostyes' and 'chiliarchia' ie a number based nomenclature (one could add 'dekad') it is a reasonable inferrence.

Glad you pointed out the quote though if you look at the Greek you'll find it bears on a discussion on the PBasilikoi thread; where i will endeavour to post it rather than here, so help me Gods!

[Xenophon]

In typical Pothos fashion, I see this thread has taken a life of its own, and digressed well beyond Neoptolemos, the former 'Companion' at Gaza turned 'archihypaspist' by Plutarch !

Agesilaos wrote:

Yes, I had forgotten Antiochos, but the doubt you raise is undone by reference to Halikarnassos where (I 22) Ptolemy son of Seleukos takes command of Addaios' and Timandros' units which both seem to have been hypaspist chiliarchia, Curtius notwithstanding, no sign of Nikanor. Further comment belongs on another thread.

This is most unlikely, because the word used for Addaios' and Timandros' 'units' is "taxeis", a term which Arrian or his sources NEVER uses of the Hypaspists. The confusion has come about because a little later Arrian records Addaios' death and describes him as 'chiliarchos/commander of 1,000' and this term is later ( after Sittakene in Book III) used of units of the Hypaspists. Most scholars consider this an anachronism.

Paralus wrote:

The passage where Antiochos is given his and two other units strongly implies more than three chiliarchies of hypaspists. There is no other attestation of the king giving his entire hypaspist corps to a singular chiliarch. As Bosworth remarks, the only person ever to lead all of the hypaspists is the king. Further, he is unlikely to have set off simply with his agema (be it a pentakosiarchy as I suggest or a chiliarchy) for the Indus. Than we have the argyraspides, to the number of 3,000, at campaign's end. This may well reflect the toll taken over the Afghanistan and Indian campaigns or perhaps these were the original chiliarchies?

Certainly there were at least 3 chiliarchies of Hypaspists post Sittakene, excluding the Agema and there are several pieces of evidence for this. I'm not going to digress into this, but will save discussion for the dormant 'numbers' thread. I'm afraid Bosworth is incorrect to say that the only person to lead all the Hypaspists is the King. According to Arrian, Nicanor commands the Agema and the Hypaspists (i.e. all) at Issus [ Arrian II.8.3], and the Agema, closely supported on their left by the Hypaspists are under Nicanor's command again at Gaugemala [Arrian III.11.9]

Paralus wrote:

If Alexander saw fit to abolish the office of commander of the hypaspists on political grounds, there is little reason to think that Perdiccas would reverse it after scraping into the regency at Babylon. As I've argued, Perdiccas had enough to concern him without creating another focus point for sedition - the reason we are told Alexander divided the Companion cavalry command.

This comment is pure speculation, and special pleading to boot. We cannot know Perdiccas' motives for what he did or didn't do. I could speculate a dozen reasons why Perdiccas might want to appoint a single commander for the Hypaspists, or why he might choose Neoptolemus - it could, for example, conceivably have been to prevent sedition.

Agesilaos wrote:

Sorry, forgot to correct this; Curtius mentions only the cohortes quingenariae (and it is chapter 2 iii);

Sorry about the typo, the reference is indeed V.ii.3. The reason I added the latin 'quingenariae cohortes' was to point out that Curtius didn't actually use the word 'lochoi'. I'm not going to be drawn into a digression on the subject of units in the Spartan army, and Thucydides confusion thereof ( on his own admission), which is hardly appropriate to a site about Alexander and his world !!!!

But I would agree we cannot be sure of Macedonian nomenclature for a unit of 500 or so was. For what it is worth, bearing in mind unit titles had changed somewhat, by Hellenistic times we hear of a unit of 512 [Arrian Tactica; Aelian; Asclepiodotus] commanded by a 'pentekosiarch' commanding a 'pentekosiarchy', two of which made up a 'chiliarchy' commanded by a 'chiliarchos' . On the other hand, Arrian III.9.6 has Alexander at Gaugemala speaking to his officers who include "lochagoi and ilarchae...and taxiarchontas taxeis " who are probably Macedonian in the context, but the lochagoi just might be Greek allies/mercenaries. This may be what influenced Rolfe in the Loeb to translate Latin 'quingenariae cohortes' as Greek 'lochoi'.

[agesilaos]

ros' 'units' is "taxeis", a term which Arrian or his sources NEVER uses of the Hypaspists. The confusion has come about because a little later Arrian records Addaios' death and describes him as 'chiliarchos/commander of 1,000' and this term is later ( after Sittakene in Book III) used of units of the Hypaspists. Most scholars consider this an anachronism

And here we have a prime example of the folly of insisting on a specific meaning for 'taxis'; presumably their 'taxeis' are phalanx commands, yet neither appear in the lists of taxiarchs at Graneikos nor does Timandros resurface at Issos, or perhaps you imagine the day was saved by the archers, who we find organised into chiliarchia, fighting hand to hand in the breach? Curtius' reported reforms should not take precerence over Arrian's testimony. The only troops whose commanders most consistently remain anonymous are the individual chiliarchs of the hypaspists. Given the situation it is almost certainly the hypaspists in action here, Addaios' companions in death make this certain

καὶ ἐν τούτοις Πτολεμαῖός τε ὁ σωματοφύλαξ καὶ Κλέαρχος ὁ τοξάρχης καὶ Ἀδαῖος ὁ χιλιάρχης, οὗτοι καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν οὐκ ἠμελημένων Μακεδόνων.

'other Macedonians of no little repute' can hardly mean any other than the hypaspists. So here IS a passage where 'taxis' is used of the hypaspists and they are organised into chiliarchia; most scholars are simply wrong.

[Xenophon]

Xenophon wrote:

ros' 'units' is "taxeis", a term which Arrian or his sources NEVER uses of the Hypaspists. The confusion has come about because a little later Arrian records Addaios' death and describes him as 'chiliarchos/commander of 1,000' and this term is later ( after Sittakene in Book III) used of units of the Hypaspists. Most scholars consider this an anachronism

Agesilaos wrote:

And here we have a prime example of the folly of insisting on a specific meaning for 'taxis';

I don't "insist" on a specific meaning....just read my posts where I entirely agree with you regarding the word's 'generic' dictionary meanings. I would also add that 'taxeis' and 'phalanx' can be used interchangeably of a single unit, for their meanings overlap to the extent that both can mean " a formation, usually of heavy infantry, arranged in battle array/order." However, needless to say, Arrian does not use the word in every possible dictionary definition, but in just a couple or so variations.( I have just finished analysing all 72 of Arrians uses of the word, and will have more to say on Arrian's usage anon)

Rather, this post perhaps illustrates the folly of ignoring the weight of what little evidence we have. Our knowledge of ancient history, and of technical military history in particular, consists of small points of information separated by huge gulfs of ignorance. A bit like having to join the dots, where the 'dots' can be joined in a number of ways. That is why debates such as that surrounding Alexander's army - about which we know very little, despite Bosworth's assertion to the contrary "Fortunately the size and composition of of the Macedonian contingents is not seriously in doubt" [Conquest and Empire p.259] - are ongoing and continuous. Many believe we will never know such matters, but the discovery of new knowledge proceeds by leaps and bounds.

A trivial example related to "Hypaspist uniforms" is that Plutarch tells us that Philip V's Macedonian peltasts ( successors as Guards to the Hypaspists) were uniformed in crimson or scarlet tunics, and in the absence of other information, this was long believed to be true also in Alexander's day. Then the friezes of 'Aghios Athenasius' revealed that the soldiers of Alexander's day probably did not wear such tunics, nor were uniformed at all !

presumably their 'taxeis' are phalanx commands, yet neither appear in the lists of taxiarchs at Graneikos nor does Timandros resurface at Issos, or perhaps you imagine the day was saved by the archers, who we find organised into chiliarchia, fighting hand to hand in the breach?

"presumably their taxeis are phalanx commands etc " ? Having advocated that 'taxis' doesn't just refer in Arrian to the the six sub-divisions of the pike phalanx - with which I agree - here you assume this is what 'taxis' means. A little too 'specific' ? Hoist by your own petard, I think!

In addition, as you correctly point out, neither appears anywhere as commander of a unit of the Macedonian pike phalanx.

Much of Alexander's army overall and its doings are totally ignored in our sources, and there is no reason that the 'taxeis' of Addaios and Timander could not have been allied Greek hoplites, or 'units' of Greek mercenaries, or both. Nor in that case would the description of Addaios as 'chiliarchos' be an anachronism, for Xenophon in his "Economica" 4 refers to this rank in a Greek context ( and in a fictional 'Persian' one in the Cyropaedia ). Whether Macedonian archers consisted of lochoi of 500 or chiliarchies of 1,000 at this time is unknown but unlikely, according to Curtius.[see below]

Curtius' reported reforms should not take precerence over Arrian's testimony. The only troops whose commanders most consistently remain anonymous are the individual chiliarchs of the hypaspists.

This strains credulity - we are given the names of several chiliarchs of Hypaspists, and since whole segments of the army are virtually anonymous ( e.g. the many Persian and other units that accompanied A. into India, or earlier the Allied Greek and mercenary units ) they are hardly the 'only,' nor even troops whose commanders remain anonymous.

Given the situation it is almost certainly the hypaspists in action here, Addaios' companions in death make this certain

καὶ ἐν τούτοις Πτολεμαῖός τε ὁ σωματοφύλαξ καὶ Κλέαρχος ὁ τοξάρχης καὶ Ἀδαῖος ὁ χιλιάρχης, οὗτοι καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν οὐκ ἠμελημένων Μακεδόνων.

'other Macedonians of no little repute' can hardly mean any other than the hypaspists. So here IS a passage where 'taxis' is used of the hypaspists and they are organised into chiliarchia; most scholars are simply wrong.

This does not appear to be so, and your quotation of I.22.7 is rather selective, for these comments are not just about Addaios' and Timander's units.

" In this action Halicarnassus lost about 1,000 men, Alexander about 40, among whom were Ptolemy the Somatophylax, Clearchus in command of the archers, Addaios, a chiliarch and other Macedonians of no mean position/repute. "

All the men referred to are senior officers/prominent commanders, who of course fought in the front line leading their men, and the other Macedonians are likewise probably officers in Macedonian or other allied and mercenary units. None are referred to as Hypaspists, nor are Hypaspists referred to as being present.

Worse still, this version of the text has been truncated. An alternate version reads "....and other Macedonians of no mean position/repute/well-known restored the battle under a man named Attarhias. Ephialtes [ An Athenian mercenary leader of the Persians] was slain and his men driven back into the city."

( digression: Attarhias was awarded the highest award for bravery at Halicarnassus, and pops up regularly as his career progresses, including service in the Hypaspists as a chiliarch and prominence in the arrest of Philotas; ultimately being referred to as "old General Attarhias" after Alexander's death.

This changes the meaning entirely, implying that it was prominent Macedonian leaders, and possibly troops, who restored the situation after non-Macedonians had struggled in vain, losing their commanders.

Your speculation that Hypaspists are being referred to is not warranted by the evidence. In particular, to brush aside the evidence of Curtius that the Macedonian infantry were organised in units of 500 at this time, not 'chiliarchies', for no good reason, when an explanation, expounded above, that is consistent with ALL the evidence of the sources is available must surely render that speculation improbable ?

[Paralus]

I'm afraid Bosworth is incorrect to say that the only person to lead all the Hypaspists is the King. According to Arrian, Nicanor commands the Agema and the Hypaspists (i.e. all) at Issus [ Arrian II.8.3], and the Agema, closely supported on their left by the Hypaspists are under Nicanor's command again at Gaugemala [Arrian III.11.9] [...] That is why debates such as that surrounding Alexander's army - about which we know very little, despite Bosworth's assertion to the contrary - are ongoing and continuous.

To be clear: we are not speaking here of who commanded what in a set piece battle line. What is being discussed is a detached command. Antiochos is split from the army with a detached, separate command. As Ptolemy is when given a third of the hypaspists. Bosworth is absolutely correct that in no instance does the king give his entire hypaspist corps to a chiliarch (or anyone else for that matter). When the hypaspists are being led, in toto, on a specific mission - not in set piece battle - it is the king, on every occasion, who so leads (as we have seen in the many attestations throughout this debate).

This occasion, if Antiochos (and Nearkhos) have all the hypaspists, would be the dog's gonads instance. It therefore seems more likely that there were more than three chiliarchies.

Paralus wrote:

If Alexander saw fit to abolish the office of commander of the hypaspists on political grounds, there is little reason to think that Perdiccas would reverse it after scraping into the regency at Babylon. As I've argued, Perdiccas had enough to concern him without creating another focus point for sedition - the reason we are told Alexander divided the Companion cavalry command.

This comment is pure speculation, and special pleading to boot. We cannot know Perdiccas' motives for what he did or didn't do. I could speculate a dozen reasons why Perdiccas might want to appoint a single commander for the Hypaspists, or why he might choose Neoptolemus - it could, for example, conceivably have been to prevent sedition.

Without going through the thread(s!), you've claimed that Alexander might never have appointed Neoptolemos as a replacement for Nikanor because this occurred at a time when he was breaking up large commands (to paraphrase). The reason the sources give for this (the Companion cavalry) was that Alexander would not again trust such a command to a single individual (such as the alleged traitorous Philotas). The direct implication is sedition. My point is that why would Perdikkas, an adherent of Alexander's 'policies', then reinstate it? As far as can be ascertained, he changed nothing else.

[agesilaos]

"presumably their taxeis are phalanx commands etc " ? Having advocated that 'taxis' doesn't just refer in Arrian to the the six sub-divisions of the pike phalanx - with which I agree - here you assume this is what 'taxis' means. A little too 'specific' ? Hoist by your own petard, I think!

Methinks that you have missed the (what I thought was) obvious sarcasm! LOL

Given the situation it is almost certainly the hypaspists in action here, Addaios' companions in death make this certain
καὶ ἐν τούτοις Πτολεμαῖός τε ὁ σωματοφύλαξ καὶ Κλέαρχος ὁ τοξάρχης καὶ Ἀδαῖος ὁ χιλιάρχης, οὗτοι καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν οὐκ ἠμελημένων Μακεδόνων.


'other Macedonians of no little repute' can hardly mean any other than the hypaspists. So here IS a passage where 'taxis' is used of the hypaspists and they are organised into chiliarchia; most scholars are simply wrong.

This does not appear to be so, and your quotation of I.22.7 is rather selective, for these comments are not just about Addaios' and Timander's units.

" In this action Halicarnassus lost about 1,000 men, Alexander about 40, among whom were Ptolemy the Somatophylax, Clearchus in command of the archers, Addaios, a chiliarch and other Macedonians of no mean position/repute. "

All the men referred to are senior officers/prominent commanders, who of course fought in the front line leading their men, and the other Macedonians are likewise probably officers in Macedonian or other allied and mercenary units. None are referred to as Hypaspists, nor are Hypaspists referred to as being present.

Worse still, this version of the text has been truncated. An alternate version reads "....and other Macedonians of no mean position/repute/well-known restored the battle under a man named Attarhias. Ephialtes [ An Athenian mercenary leader of the Persians] was slain and his men driven back into the city."

( digression: Attarhias was awarded the highest award for bravery at Halicarnassus, and pops up regularly as his career progresses, including service in the Hypaspists as a chiliarch and prominence in the arrest of Philotas; ultimately being referred to as "old General Attarhias" after Alexander's death.

Selective? Well yes, the casualties of the Halikarnassians and the number of Alexander’s are not germane to the argument, unless you can give some reason why they are crucial. As for the coda on Atarrhias and Ephialtes, this is simply not in Arrian at all, as a glance at the Roos edition available on Perseus or the Loeb (p95 in the Brunt edition), will confirm. I can see two ways how this error may have crept into the Chinnock translation available at Alexander-sources.org, either Chinnock is guilty of a shameful addition to his text or a footnote has been absorbed into the text, which was OCRed judging from the rogue characters with the superscript numeral forming a gibberish which was mistakenly edited to include the footnote. Atarrhias is unique to the vulgate with its story of the veterans saving the day when the youngsters were faltering.

So we are left with Ptolemy ‘the bodyguard’, the taxeis of Timandros and Addaios (which is a chiliarchy, and some psiloi, surely the archers whose commander Klearchos is slain, defending against the sally at the Triple Gate. Of these Ptolemy is said to have died, though he reappears at Issos, Addaios is slain leading Greeks? These cannot be the league troops, who served under their own commanders, and so must be mercenaries, presumably peltasts, though these seem to serve under their own commanders too (Addaios is one of ‘the Macedonians of no little repute’) since the same is true of Timandros’ men in your view above, this must mean that all the casualties fell on Ptolemy’s command, which was of Hypaspists, the phrase ‘Macedonians of no little repute’ is applied to the 120 slain at Issos who must be Hypaspists (peasant sarrisophoroi are hardly ‘men of repute’).

Since you are so enamoured of Curtius V 2 iii, then you must accept that the eight men named are chiliarchs, good luck finding them sufficient commands.

The solution that actually fits the evidence is that the Hypaspists responded to the sally from the triple-gate, their camp was probably opposite it; otherwise one has to posit Ptolemy wandering around the walls with his unit when he calls upon some light armed Greek mercenaries to repel the attack.

It is an odd position to take the evidence is scant and susceptible to many interpretations but ‘taxis’ was NEVER used for the Hypaspists. A mistaken dogmatism should be left to Mr Tombs.

[Paralus]

All the men referred to are senior officers/prominent commanders, who of course fought in the front line leading their men, and the other Macedonians are likewise probably officers in Macedonian or other allied and mercenary units. None are referred to as Hypaspists, nor are Hypaspists referred to as being present.

Worse still, this version of the text has been truncated. An alternate version reads "....and other Macedonians of no mean position/repute/well-known restored the battle under a man named Attarhias. Ephialtes [ An Athenian mercenary leader of the Persians] was slain and his men driven back into the city."

This changes the meaning entirely, implying that it was prominent Macedonian leaders, and possibly troops, who restored the situation after non-Macedonians had struggled in vain, losing their commanders.

The “truncated text”, I see, has been dealt with and so to the last first. This has indeed been lifted from the Vulgate. Curtius’ text reads like a soldier's letter home from the front: ‘redacted’ to the point of insensibility. Diodorus, fortunately preserves the gist of the action. It is Alexander who leads the troops fighting at the breach (17.26.4):

When the king saw what was happening, he placed the best fighters of the Macedonians in front and he posted a third group also consisting of others who had a good record for stout fighting. He himself at the head of all took command and made a stand against the enemy, who had supposed that because of their mass they would be invincible.

According to Diodorus the troops with the king are Macedonian – and one would not expect otherwise. He would certainly have the agema of the hypaspists with him in the least. Diodorus then relates that as these troops faltered under the concentrated assault and “Alexander found himself quite helpless”...

...the oldest Macedonians, who were exempt from combat duty by virtue of their age, but who had served with Philip on his campaigns and had been victorious in many battles, were roused by the emergency to show their valour, and, being superior in pride and war experience, sharply rebuked the faintheartedness of the youngsters who wished to avoid the battle. Then they closed ranks with their shields overlapping and confronted the foe, who thought himself already victorious. (17.26.1-2)

All were Macedonian in the rescue sally and those with the king cannot have been anything but unless we suppose that he entered the fray surrounded by allied infantry, light infantry (archers or others) or Greek league troops. That is moot though as Diodorus describes them as Macedonians.

Those at the Tripylon Gate are described by Arrian and here I would agree with Agesilaos. Ptolemy the Somatophylax is, to my view, unlikely to be leading a group of allied infantry and lights. As with other detachments elsewhere narrated by Arrian, he is more likely to have had a unit of hypaspists and other troops for if there is a sally from the Gate it will be hand to hand fighting. The casualty ‘list’ at the finish appears to be more concerned with this latest action as Ptolemy and Adaios are the only named individuals aside from Klearkhos (commanding the archers). The other thirty-seven include the “other Macedonians of note”. Again, it is possible that these are with Ptolemy as Arrian describes a real slaughter at the Gate, though it might just as well relate to losses around Alexander, in which case we may be talking the agema and related hypaspists.

The real problem is that Arrian (or, rather, Ptolemy) skates over the serious nature of the fighting at Halicarnassus. Were we only to have Arrian’s description we would have to assume it was a walk in the park. Diodorus makes plain the king’s situation was grave until restored by the ‘veterans’ and the Tripylon Gate goes missing. Arrian, on the other hand, has Alexander – merely by the fact that he leads the Macedonians – frighten the defenders off and back into their city. He also has the division stationed at the Tripylon Gate repel the sortie with little trouble resulting in a rout and great slaughter including the deaths of (at least) Ptolemy and Adaios.

Which brings me to this:

So we are left with Ptolemy ‘the bodyguard’, the taxeis of Timandros and Addaios (which is a chiliarchy, and some psiloi, surely the archers whose commander Klearchos is slain, defending against the sally at the Triple Gate. Of these Ptolemy is said to have died, though he reappears at Issos, Addaios is slain leading Greeks?

There is a chorus line of Ptolemys in Arrian. I think you’ve confused a couple here. The Ptolemy at Halicarnassus is a Somatophylax (one of the seven) and not a taxiarch. The Ptolemy (son of Seleukos) who dies at Issos is first mentioned at 1.24.1. Here he is described as τῶν σωματοφυλάκων τῶν βασιλικῶν. If he is a Somatophylax, he must be with the king in the ile basilike and not leading hypaspists or a division of the phalanx. In the battle line description Arrian has Ptolemy (patronymic not supplied) leading the phalanx unit to the immediate left of centre (next to Meleaghros: Koinos, Perdiccas, Meleaghros, Ptolemy, Amyntas and Krateros). Arrian then describes that breaches occurred in the phalanx as it attempted to cross the river stating that “the Macedonians at the centre [...] could not keep their front line in proper order” (2.10.5). He then says that the Greeks charged “the worst breach in the Macedonian phalanx” and that here the action was fierce (10.6). At the end of this action Arrian notes that “at this spot” that Ptolemy son of Seleukos and 120 notable Macedonians died. The only Ptolemy mentioned to date is the taxiarch and it is the most likely scenario that we are speaking of the same man – a man leading forces in the middle where the phalanx could not keep its front ranks in order.

Ptolemy cannot have been a Somatophylax for he here is a taxiarch and, as I’ve argued elsewhere - Xenophon’s more modern notions of ‘rank’ aside – he is unlikely ever to have seen his removal from the group of seven to be a promotion. He is likely an officer of the agema and has been promoted. The only other solution is that Ptolemy the taxiarch and Ptolemy son of Seleukos are different individuals. I don’t think that case can be made given Arrian’s description.

[agesilaos]

A prosopographical digression, the nature of the beast, I suppose.

I see no good reason for making 'Ptolemy son of Seleukos,one of the Royal Bodyguards' I 24 ii, different from 'Ptolemy the Bodyguard' of I 22 vii, or 'Ptolemy son of Seleukos' of II 10. That the reported death occurs before the furlough of the 'neogamoi' need not prove the insurmountable problem it would have in the days of Arrrian's quasi-papal infallibility, it is now recognised that errors are not uncommon and he could confuse things; I might add that the work seems not to have been fully polished and that what we have is more in the nature of a practice piece for his skills in collation, prior to his moving on to the work that was closest to his heart 'Bithynica' (let's not discuss this here, though, Xenophon's digression gland must be seriously enlarged already ).

I cannot agree that at I 24 ii the 'somatophylakeia' refers to service in the 'basilike ile'; whilst Curtius' source clearly did use 'somatophylax' for members of this body Arrian's seem not to have, reserving it for the Seven, and I don't think this man was one of them (there is only space for him if one assumes Hephaistion became a 'somatophylax' to replace him and that the appointment went unremarked; it strikes me as far more likely that Alexander elevated him as soon as he became king and thus before Arrian's detailed narrative starts). I see his 'somatophylakeia' as service in the 'agema', if any credence is to be lent to the vulgate story of the old men relieving the young, then probably in the Hypaspistai Basilikoi, who were the former Paides (in my scheme) Atarrhias would then have led the 'Agema twn Makedonwn' to the rescue. I would not place much confidence in the Vulgate version, it contains too many unlikely details; the veterans are time-expired veterans in the first year of the expedition, when Alexander was said to be short of funds, would he bring along such a crew of grognards? Atarrhias is still going five years later at Satrapane (the MS version of the editors' Sittacene; I seem to have contracted digressophilia) and, i think, appears ten years later when the veterans are discharged. There is only one sally which Alexander himself fails to counter with his young Macedonians, it strikes me as propagandist (along the lines of Homeric tag of 'they hurled stones greater than it would take ten men of these days to lift').

I appear to have wandere; at Issos, I would say that Ptolemy the taxiarch was listed sans patronym, whereas Ptolemy the son of Seleukos was not even named in the dispositions, which is usual for the individual leaders of the hypaspist chiliarchia or pentekosia (if one prefers); when it came to the casualties Arrian conflated the taxiarch and the somatophylax, perhaps aided by his memory of Ptolemy son of seleukos' mission in the company of Koinos and Meleager, the neighbours of Ptolemy the taxiarch's unit in the battle-line. We did discuss this in the 'The Break in the Macedonian Line at Issos' thread.

I always seem to be harping on about translation but , as I am sure you are aware, 'phalanx' need not be restricted to the Macedonian pikemen, nor even those plus the hypaspists, it has the sense of 'battle-line' factoring in the right wing cavalry could pull the broken front further right from Meleager's unit at the centre of the infantry line, but in any case the 'worst breach in the Macedonian battle-line' need not be synonymous with the 'centre which could not keep its front line in proper order', the fact that the 120 casualties are 'notable Macedonians' is surely a clue that this serious breach occurred elsewhere than the peasant pike phalanx.