pothos.org

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:12 am**

Agesilaos wrote:

“Unfortunately, you have been deceived by the Latin; 'liberi adulti' is equivalent to 'meirakia' , adolescents. liberi (liberos is accusative plural - in Curtius they are the object of Amyntas' 'bringing with him') means children - pueri and puellae; 'adultus' can mean fully grown but it also refers to moving from one stage to another, so that an 'adult child' is one who has reached puberty not their majority. That this is the correct interpretation is shown by Alexander's declaration that 'slaves are permitted to beat boys of this age' referring to Hermolaos, together with the usual appelation 'puer' for the Pages. Here 'adultus' is a past participle of 'adolesceo', in the Philip passage 'adultus' is a noun meaning 'adulthood'; same pattern of letters, totally different meaning.”

Thank you for your linguistic corrections, which I believe clarify matters considerably! On checking around, I see that the most common translation of ‘liberi adulti’ is “grown-up children”. I suggest that in this instance it describes both ‘grown-up/fully grown children’ and those moving from one stage to another – namely to the ‘epheboi’ stage, 19 and 20 year-olds.
Xenophon wrote:

“.....’ primum adultus' in Curtius' words. This is a stumbling block, because if Curtius is correct, the 50 paides are 'adults' i.e. 20 year-olds, having been epheboi between 18 and 20 ( as per the epigraphic evidence). Also, according to Curtius[VIII.6.2] it was the custom "for the leading men of the Makedones to entrust their sons to the King on their coming of age for duties not very different from the service of slaves." (princibus Macedonum adultos liberos regibus tradere ad munia haud multum servilibus ministeriis abhorrentia ), that is, once again as adults on reaching age 20.
One wonders if Arrian's meirakion really refers to 'reaching puberty' or 'adolescence', since the ONLY time it is apparently used to mean this is here, according to the LSJ, and Plutarch and Lucian use it to mean "play the part of a boy". Some further research required, I think.”

The stumbling block is removed if we accept that ‘coming of age’ for these ‘liberi adulti’/grown-up children is the ‘epheboi’ stage in their 19th and 20th years. I realise that ‘epheboi’ in a general sense can refer to post pubescent adolescents, as can 'paides', but as the epigraphical evidence confirms, in Macedon it had a technical sense too of meaning the 19-20 year-olds. We can see a parallel in Athenian ‘epheboi’ training, instituted in 335 BC, for the same age –group, also a technical use ( which I referred to earlier) and almost certainly based on Macedonian current practice.

If we now posit that the 50 ‘paides basilikoi’, who were sent to the King to provide his last line of defence, were the 'epheboi' 19-20 years old, we are consistent with all the evidence. Technically they are not yet adults, and so can be beaten as Alexander says. At the same time we can see why why Kallisthenes can call them ‘vires’ ( albeit in an ambiguous situation) and the terms ‘nobilis iuvenis’ and ‘primum adultus’ can be used of them.
Equally, in an age when physical strength and fitness were essential for armed combat, we can see why youths of this age were probably chosen to be the King’s inner bodyguard. That is to say paides/epheboi in the technical rather than generic sense. ( younger teenaged adolescents, not yet ‘full-grown’ would be useless for such a task). Throughout military history, and even today, it is 19-20 year-olds who are conscripted for military service, for they represent young men in their prime.

Agesilaos wrote:

“I do not think there is any weight to placed on the fact that only one draft of Pages is mentioned in the sources, they are mentioned because of the Conspiracy, it seems just as likely that each year the quota came out, not least because the loss of the honour would be felt by those left out, the careers of those passed over would be retarded. Alexander did not want discontent at home, and they provide quasi-hostages too. Our sources are simply not concerned with the daily running of things until it impinges upon Alexander; had Hermolaos not rebelled we may never had heard of the institution at all!”

I would entirely agree. I think it highly likely that a batch of ‘paides basilikoi’ were sent to the King each year, because the 20 year-olds would turn 21 and become full adults (neoi) and would effectively ‘graduate’. The reference to Aretas is a ‘straw in the wind’ that Alexander had ‘paides basilikoi’ about him prior to the Hermolaos incident – he probably took the current crop with him at the outset of the expedition. The total number of 50 is also significant, for as Arrian notes it provided 7 shifts of 7 individuals as a roster, just as there were 7 ‘somatophylakes’.

“Let's not use 'closest companion' for 'Hoi Hetairoi amph'autou', it is not the closest translation - attendant companions would suffice - but this is how A B Bosworth and W Heckel explain the 'ast-' of 'asthetairoi' Bosworth in kinship, Heckel spatially; I think we can all agree there is enough ground for confusion already! ”

Perhaps “those companions closest about him”, meant in both senses, spatially and the King’s campaign ‘family’, would be the most appropriate, for there was ample precedent for this in the Greek world. For example, “those who fought about” a Spartan King were a mixture of his companion tent-mates, personal friends, certain officials such as his personal physician, priests and seers, and closest bodyguards - all close to him in both senses. Thus the HHAA would be a rather heterogenous bunch, probably varying in number from time to time, and effectively making up the ‘staff’ of the King, who of course like everyone else including the King were expected to fight, and naturally these fought “closest about the King”, mounted or on foot. This would also explain why they were often associated/coupled with “the seven” somatophylakes, whose positions were clearly much more than mere bodyguards, and who were also often close to the King, when their duties did not take them elsewhere. It also explains why some were clearly older than graduating ‘paides’.

Not to mention why they are not mentioned as part of the Agema or Companion cavalry.

Agesilaos wrote:

“I prefer a more permeable picture of the Macedonian hierarchy, logically not every page would cut the mustard, or even survive to progress to HHAA, it would stand to reason, then that this was not an exclusive route though probably the most common.”

...and again I would agree, even if we are not entirely in agreement on the detail. Heckel’s ‘cursus honorum’ is just too rigid and not supported by, or consistent with, the evidence.

Posted: **Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:00 pm**

The age thing is crucial here; the paides Basilikoi were pre-ephebic when then they joined and probably until they moved on. Ephebes could not be beaten by slaves only children by their pedagogues, at Athens (whence most evidence) full citizens would be prosecuted on a capital charge for conducting homosexual relations with an ephebe, a slave daring to beat one would be summarily killed and a citizen up on an assault charge or one of hubris, which was serious enough to warrant exile. It was a privilege of pageship that only the King could beat you, this implies they were of an age where anyone could beat them normally.

Nor were the Paides the last layer of defence, their duties were not on the field but in the Court or at the Hunt.

Bosworth suggests ‘Commentary II’ p91 that ‘meirakieusthai’ is a coining of Arrian’s by analogy with Xenophon’s ‘neaniskeusthai’ at Cyropaedia I 2 xv, yet another ‘youth’ descriptor’. The same phrase describes their service ending ‘es helikian’ or ‘until manhood’ , the very stage Philip son of Agathokles is said to be at, ‘primum adultus’.

The generational quibble won’t wash either, I fear; of the top of my head we have Parmenion and all three of his sons; Sopolis is Hermolaos’ father; Asklepiodoros and his page son, Antipatros; the generational rule was clearly post Argaead and the reason is not far to see; it was to avoid the devastation of the Macedonian nobility and possibly populace in general after the depradations of Alexander’s campaign, the Diadochic Wars and the Gallic Irruption. This was similar to the rules introduced after WWI that brothers could not serve on the same ship in the Royal Navy and that regiments should recruit from a wider base than had formerly been the case.

Military conservatism can be greatly exaggerated. An Antigonid Hypaspist is not an Argaead one nor are the Peltastes analogous, unit names and probably the recruitment basis are different. Tactically the phalanx has superceded the heavy cavalry as the strike force and that cavalry become shielded javelinmen rather than unshielded lancers. I am sure you would agree that the old view of the later army being an inflexible fossil is quite untenable. It was only the advent of Rome and her manipular legions that the Phalanx met its match and it still had a century to run after Pydna. Systems only change once success eludes them, post Magnesia the Seleukids experimented with faux-legionaries, the later successors were quite apt to change.

After service with the Pages the personnel had to go somewhere, certainly not straight into satrapal appointments nor the higher officer corps; I see HHAA as this body, I concur that it is placing a lot on four references but then we have to add the supporting evidence from Curtius’ ‘iuvenes noblissimi’. Which I will get to soon, but I want to get through Hatzopoulos first.

Here is a fullish list of age descriptors, you will note however that the paragraph beginning with ‘meirakion’ has been transposed with that describing ‘ephebes’ by the scholiast.

________________________________________

Regarding PAIS, I note that the word is used of the centurion's servant
in Matt 8:5-13 while Luke uses the word DOULOS in what is apparently the
same incident in 7:1-10. I would welcome your take on how is PAIS being
used in the Matthean account. Is there some cultural phenomenon occuring
here?
Garland
Garland Shinn
Professor of Biblical Languages and Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary
El Cajon, CA
Christopher Hutson wrote:
>
> Carle wrote:
>
> >perhaps you can help me with one that's been bothering me for some
> >time:the difference between MEIRAKION and PAIS--and is there anything else
> >between these and an EFHBOS?
>
> The language of youth is actually closer to the focus of my dissertation.
> Yes. Here is my translation of Aristophanes' whole catalogue of terms for
> age. This is the text as preserved in Eustathius' commentary on the
> Odyssey:
>
> <<<<<<TEXT OF ARISTOPHANES<<<<<<<<<
>
> BREFOS: that which is newly born.
> PAIDION: that which is fed by a nurse.
> PAIDARION: that which is walking around and beginning to grasp vocabulary.
> PAIDISKOS: the one in the next stage.
> PAIS: one who is able to go through the common educational curriculum.
>
> And the next age some call pallax (PALLAC), others an ox-child (BOUPAIS);
> others a quasi-child (ANTIPAIS), and yet others an ephebe-to-be
> (MELLEFHBOS).
>
> After this is the ephebe (EFHBOS). In Cyrene they call the ephebes the
> Three-hundred, and in Crete Ònon-runnersÓ (ADROMOI), since they do not yet
> participate in the athletic field. Yet the form of this word seems to
> signify the opposite, namely,
> one who has retired from the races and is no longer a participant. But they
> also call those who do not eat fish Òunfished,Ó and those who are unrefined
> Òunmused,Ó and those who are prepubescent Òunhaired.Ó
>
> After this is a meirakion (MEIRAKION) then a meirax (MEIRAC) and a neaniskos
> (NEANISKOS) and a neanias (NEANIAS), the same thing. The Spartans call
> these ÒhorsesÓ (hIPPEIS) and their leaders they call Òwild horsesÓ
> (hIPPAGRETAI).
>
> Then next is that stage at which it is customary to marry a wife, at which
> time one might also be called bride-groom (NUMFIOS). Subsequently, he
> probably also will be called father (PATHR). Then young man (ANHR NEOS);
> then middle man (ANHR MESOS); then advanced (PROBEBHKWS), and greying
> (hUPOPOLIOS), which some call near-old man (WMOGERWN); then old man (GERWN)
> and elder (PRESBUTHS), the same thing; then extremely old (ESXATOGHRWS).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>END OF TEXT>>>>>>>>>
>
> Aristophanes here identifies no fewer than sixteen different stages of life
> for males and offers an additional twelve alternate terms. As helpful as
> this catalogue is for an orientation to the vocabulary, and even though it
> was copied and repeated through the centuries, we cannot take it as a final
> authority on word usage. First, many of the terms are cognates, and the
> distinctions between them are sometimes obscure. Some are clearly not
> discrete stages but indications of the normal order at which such terms
> might be applicable. Second, even those stages which seem more discrete
> may have variable terminology applied to them. Third, Aristophanes himself
> recognizes regional variations in terminology, and we should expect such
> variations in usage as well.
> On the other hand, the list does indicate that the ancients were aware of
> some fine gradations in human development. Terms such as PAIS, NEOTHS, and
> GERWN were often used broadly, but they were patient of precise usage, which
> of course could vary from text to text. Conversely, a precisely defined
> stage of life might be identified in various ways from text to text.
>
> I have lots examples of the usages of these terms in various periods and in
> various places, and I'm confident that you could supply many more, Carl.
> It's too much to present here, but if you have a specific question about the
> usage of EFHBOS or MEIRAKION or PAIS or any other term, I'll try to help.
>
> For that matter, if you have any observations on my choices of English
> equivalents for any of the terms in Aristophanes' list, I'd be happy to have
> your comments. Some of them I don't translate at all, since they are the
> focus of subsequent discussion. How many different ways can one say "youth"
> in English without reading too many modern cultural assumptions into ancient
> Greek vocabulary? Adolescent, Boy/Girl, High Schooler, Lad, Prepster, Teen,
> Teenager, Young Man/Woman, Youngster, Youth. It's tough to find enough
> synonyms that don't inject misleading nuances into the Greek words

Posted: **Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:43 am**

Xenophon wrote:Perhaps “those companions closest about him”, meant in both senses, spatially and the King’s campaign ‘family’, would be the most appropriate, for there was ample precedent for this in the Greek world.

I see broadband has made it to Scillus!

I'd agree. As I say, I do not consider this a technical term rather describing those hetairoi about the king and, if it is at all technical, his syntrophoi or his closest hetairoi who formed his council.

Xenophon wrote:This illustrates the point I made above – that conservative institutions continued wherever possible, but that at the same time some institutions were compelled to change by force of circumstance.

The army institutions might be as conservative as they like but "force of circumstance" certainly alters their nature - especially in an army "destroyed" as you say. Examples abound of states' altering standard practice to raise armies (Cleomenes III and and Athens instituting the 'ephebiate' in response to Chaeronaea are just two which spring to mind). Macedonia will have been no different.

Traditional Macedonian units were kept by the Successors but their operation was anything but traditional. Eumenes and Antigonus between them fielded 1,900 Companion cavalry along with 250 paides. That these are not all Macedonian and sons of Macedonian nobility goes without saying. In fact, Macedonians will have made up very little of them - especially Eumenes' army. The respective agemata likely represented, at most, the largest number. Even these will not have been totally Macedonian. The same goes for the relevant units under the Seleucids. Macedonia was not in the position to tap such abundant manpower resources and, so, its methods of recruitment will also have altered irrevocably from the time of Philip II and Alexander III.

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:28 am**

Agesilaos wrote:

The age thing is crucial here; the paides Basilikoi were pre-ephebic when then they joined and probably until they moved on.

Yes, normal Macedonian training started at age 15, as I mentioned earlier and presumably that was the age of the those selected to train at court. However, I don't believe they were sent on campaign until the 'ephebic' stage of 19 and 20 year-olds, as with other similar Greek institutions.

Nor were the Paides the last layer of defence, their duties were not on the field but in the Court or at the Hunt.

I meant 'last layer of defence' since they guarded the bedchamber, and as the Hermolaos and (possibly)Aretus incidents show, some paides at least accompanied the King in the field. These can only have been the 'seniors' in the Ephebic stage ( 19-20 year olds) for as I have noted, younger adolescents, not full-grown, would have been useless for the task, nor could they fight in battle, whereas 19-20 year olds at their physical peak would fit the bill admirably. Further, this is consistent with all the evidence.

As your list of age descriptors and accompanying comments show ( and like all things ancient Greek), meaning need not be terribly precise.

As indicated in my previous post, I don't see HHAA as being a 'body' or 'unit' in the military sense but more like the Kings 'entourage', made up of those 'closest to the King' in a rather loose sense, and including Somatophylakes, counsellors, personal friends, officials etc. - all of whom would be expected to fight alongside the King whether on horse or foot.

As to the Macedonian military, whilst there were inevitable changes, many of the fundamentals can be traced back from Antigonid times to Philip and Alexander's time. I'd certainly agree the Successors were hardly 'inflexible fossils' militarily.

As to where ex-paides went on graduating at 21 into 'Neoi', the most appropriate posting would be as junior officers throughout the army, or into an elite unit - remembering that the 'graduation' number will likely have been a mere 25 or so.

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:47 am**

Paralus wrote:

Traditional Macedonian units were kept by the Successors but their operation was anything but traditional. Eumenes and Antigonus between them fielded 1,900 Companion cavalry along with 250 paides. That these are not all Macedonian and sons of Macedonian nobility goes without saying. In fact, Macedonians will have made up very little of them - especially Eumenes' army. The respective agemata likely represented, at most, the largest number. Even these will not have been totally Macedonian. The same goes for the relevant units under the Seleucids. Macedonia was not in the position to tap such abundant manpower resources and, so, its methods of recruitment will also have altered irrevocably from the time of Philip II and Alexander III.

The structure of the Successor armies was still essentially that of Macedon's heyday - phalanx and aristocratic heavy cavalry, supported by various 'auxiliaries' usually in the form of light troops, both foot and horse and mercenaries. Different circumstances produced different solutions - a Ptolemaic army was not the same as a Seleucid one, but you might be hard put to tell the difference on the battlefield. Of all of them, Antigonid Macedon was uniquely placed to carry on its traditional recruitment of the real Macedonian phalanx rather than one modelled on it. Also, the human age groups don't change - adolescents younger than 18 or 19 are too young (unless 'in extremis') and over 55's too old as a rule, even for home guard duties. I don't think Macedon ever had 'abundant' manpower for the ambitions of its Kings, whether Philip II or Perseus, and certainly Macedon never had the populations of Asia or Egypt on which to draw - but then the vast majority in these countries, with their very different social structures, were not suitable for military service by comparison.....

I agree that the army of Philip V or Perseus was not the same as that of Philip II, and indeed we see changes to the army even just in Alexander's short reign, but the fundamentals, especially the 'framework' so to speak, remained the same.

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:43 am**

I think you are still imagining the age of entry into the Pages as too high. Arrian says they were just pubescent which would be 13 or even 12, sexual maturity has drifted up the age scale in our pampered societies so it may even have been as low as ten, in any case the entry would be on attaining puberty with its evident changes rather than an arbitrary age, most Macedonians would not know how old they were (Roman tombstones and discharge documents demonstrate that even in a highly bureaucratised state men could frequently only supply an age range, sometimes as broad as a decade!).

I would posit that they remained in the Pages for seven years and graduated at the 'ephebic' stage, the treatment and duties of the Pages would be inimical to an ephebe; they would not, at this stage be fit for command, nor could a place be found for the 'foreign' Pages within the ethnic structure of the army. It would be logical if they moved from the cubiculary duties to battlefield guard duties, a case indicated, perhaps, by that Pausanias who sacrificed himself fighting alongside Philip II (Diod XVI near the end).

I accept that it is not usual to see HHAA as indicating a separate body but consider; these men are associated with the hypaspists rather than the cavalry and yet are termed 'hetairoi', they accompany the king at audiences reclining on couches with silver feet, so they are clearly nobles of some sort and fairly low in number also the same phrase is used for all these functionaries, at VII 24 ii Alexander has not randomly called the Companions standing about him to come onto the dais and sit on the couches that are described as theirs, HHAA here must designate an organised body and we ought to consider that possibility elsewhere. Add the Curtian evidence and things gel.

The institututions died with the Agaeads

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:54 am**

I agree re the pages. The object is clearly to have them brought up at court and loyal to the king. that suits a commencement age of 12 or 13. I do not see these 'graduating' 20-21 year olds moving into some form of command position - junior or otherwise. One hardly suspects they went on to serve in the pezhetairoi as file leaders or similar. That they went onto an elite unit is the point - and a guard unit at that. Hence that Pausanias who steps in front of Philip.

agesilaos wrote:I accept that it is not usual to see HHAA as indicating a separate body but consider; these men are associated with the hypaspists rather than the cavalry and yet are termed 'hetairoi', they accompany the king at audiences reclining on couches with silver feet, so they are clearly nobles of some sort and fairly low in number also the same phrase is used for all these functionaries, at VII 24 ii Alexander has not randomly called the Companions standing about him to come onto the dais and sit on the couches that are described as theirs, HHAA here must designate an organised body and we ought to consider that possibility elsewhere. Add the Curtian evidence and things gel.

The institututions died with the Agaeads

I agree these mostly died with the Argaeads. I remain unconvinced over hoi hetairoi amph’auton denoting a distinct elite body - outside of it possibly referring to the "closest" of the hetairoi, likely the king's syntrophoi. I will, though, reread the passages and have a think on it. You hang much on a supposed dropping of amph’auton for the hypaspists at Tyre.

Time now to watch England bat like the snails occupying the outer surrounds of the Oval...

Posted: **Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:25 pm**

It is not overly crucial that 'amph'auton' has dropped out at Tyre since they are derfinitely termed 'hetairoi' and 'hypaspistai'. Further 'amph'auton' is completely neutral there is no 'closest' implied, it simply means 'around him'; I suggest that it represents a distinct body because it is clear that the men reffered to are no random group who happen to be 'around him' at the time, (with the possible exception of Demaratas at Granikos), at Pelion they have both horses and shields, and are associated with the 'somatophylakes', probably the 'agema' rather than the Seven; at Granikos it would seem that one of them at least is in close attendance to the king; again at Tyre they equal a ships complement, 120 or so and are described as hypaspists as well as companions, they are led by Admetos who is not the archihypaspist, that is Nikanor, nor is he called a chiliarch he is important enough to precede Alexander onto the wall: at Opis Alexander quits the platform with HHAA and the 'somatophylakes' , again this is most unlikely to be an ad hoc group; finally at VII 24 ii, we are told that HHAA had special couches to sit on when attending upon the king.

Curtius' story of Philip does not suit his description of the duties and ages of the Pages but would fit the next stage of a Page's career.

I too will retire until the series peters out with a draw...

Posted: **Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:51 am**

Agesilaos wrote:

The generational quibble won’t wash either, I fear; of the top of my head we have Parmenion and all three of his sons; Sopolis is Hermolaos’ father; Asklepiodoros and his page son, Antipatros; the generational rule was clearly post Argaead and the reason is not far to see; it was to avoid the devastation of the Macedonian nobility and possibly populace in general after the depradations of Alexander’s campaign, the Diadochic Wars and the Gallic Irruption. This was similar to the rules introduced after WWI that brothers could not serve on the same ship in the Royal Navy and that regiments should recruit from a wider base than had formerly been the case.

You are comparing apples and pears here. What rules applied to the 'yeomen' of Macedonia who supplied the vast bulk of the army regarding generational exceptions was designed to ensure that not all males were drafted, and that there was sufficient left behind to 'work the farm'. Naturally these rules didn't apply to the nobility, who had no such concerns. Your examples are all nobles, and grand magnates at that.( Not to mention that 'volunteers' would be an exception ).

Furthermore, there is no reason that such a common sense rule need be post Argead - it probably applied pre-Argead. It was certainly not a rule brought in to preserve the nobility - they, as always in history, had ways to ensure their own preservation !!

Agesilaos wrote:

I think you are still imagining the age of entry into the Pages as too high. Arrian says they were just pubescent which would be 13 or even 12, sexual maturity has drifted up the age scale in our pampered societies so it may even have been as low as ten, in any case the entry would be on attaining puberty with its evident changes rather than an arbitrary age, most Macedonians would not know how old they were (Roman tombstones and discharge documents demonstrate that even in a highly bureaucratised state men could frequently only supply an age range, sometimes as broad as a decade!).

Pubescence is a period covering a number of years, with gradual changes. The usual age range for boys in modern societies is around 12-13 to 16-17, but this can vary widely from society to society and can be affected by various environmental factors, in particular nutrition. Nor is it correct to say that sexual maturity has drifted up the scale over time. In fact quite the opposite is true. In the 21st century, the average age at which children, especially girls, reach puberty is lower compared to the 19th century, when it was 15 for girls and 16 for boys.This can be due to any number of factors, including improved nutrition resulting in rapid body growth, increased weight and fat deposition.The average age at which the onset of puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s. In every decade from 1840 to 1950 there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European females. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their menarche at an average age of 17 years. In France, the average in 1840 was 15.3 years. In England, the average in 1840 was 16.5 years. We may surmise that ancient Macedonian agricultural society was more like 1840's European agricultural society, especially nutritionally, than 21st C society and hence the approximate age of the onset of puberty was likely 15 or possibly later - which fits nicely with the epigraphical evidence. I think your point about not knowing age is exaggerated. Whilst it is demonstrably true that historically many could not recall their exact age, these are invariably the aged, who often exaggerate their age! The mothers of youngsters will have known their children's age to the day.

Agesilaos wrote:

I accept that it is not usual to see HHAA as indicating a separate body but consider; these men are associated with the hypaspists rather than the cavalry and yet are termed 'hetairoi', they accompany the king at audiences reclining on couches with silver feet, so they are clearly nobles of some sort and fairly low in number also the same phrase is used for all these functionaries, at VII 24 ii Alexander has not randomly called the Companions standing about him to come onto the dais and sit on the couches that are described as theirs, HHAA here must designate an organised body and we ought to consider that possibility elsewhere. Add the Curtian evidence and things gel.

I would submit the above supports the view that HHAA describes the King's 'entourage' rather than a military unit. I was not suggesting that they were 'random' people standing near the King - they would be the sort of mix I described previously, with many, probably the majority, coming from the 'Synedroi/council'. Certainly all would know their status as to who counted as a 'close companion', and there is no need for an 'organised body' or military unit.

As to the paides and the age they served with the King as 'paides basilikoi', I have just noticed that Hammond deduced Arrian's IV.13.1 'attaining puberty' as age 14, and 18 as 'graduation' from the Royal School of Pages based in Macedon ( inter alia on the strength of Alexander the Molossian graduating to his throne aged 18). If we adjust these deductions in line with the comments on the age of puberty above, and the epigraphical evidence referred to earlier, then we have the 'paides' attending the Royal school from circa puberty/around 15 until age 18 or so, then as 'ephebes' graduating the school and attending the King on campaign as 19 and 20 year-olds, in the role of bodyguards ( Diod. XVII.65.1 and Curtius V.1.42, probably derived from a common source) before graduating as 'neoi/men' at 21......

Posted: **Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:15 am**

Xenophon wrote:You are comparing apples and pears here. What rules applied to the 'yeomen' of Macedonia who supplied the vast bulk of the army regarding generational exceptions was designed to ensure that not all males were drafted, and that there was sufficient left behind to 'work the farm'. Naturally these rules didn't apply to the nobility, who had no such concerns. Your examples are all nobles, and grand magnates at that.( Not to mention that 'volunteers' would be an exception ).

Whilst I take the point about farming, I disagree. That is an argument based on a combination of attested late Antigonid practice and on the silence of the sources relating to Alexander's army. More importantly it is based on the silence of the sources when it comes to the "great unwashed" which made up the army. No source is interested in the conscript "non-descripts" that make up the phalanx and so we are most unlikely ever to read of the names of such let alone how many fathers, sons or brothers might have served. We are not even informed of such a make up of the hypaspists. That the sources do not bother reporting the names and patronymics of the peasant farmers who made up the phalanx, for example, does not prove they had none!This is a point that Roisman makes in his Veternas of Alexander: the entire history of the Successor period is told by source(s) uninterested in the "rank and file' or their lot - except when it impinges upon the narrative of the great generals and players. This is more so with Alexander historiography. There is no reason to believe that the "average" Macedonian was any less fertile than the great and powerful. Infant mortality would likely be a little more pronounced but the "great and good", no matter how much wealth, couldn't buy modern medicine either.

More on hoi hetairoi amph’auton shortly. Suffice to say I think you are on the right track if not quite heading in the correct direction.

Posted: **Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:59 pm**

agesilaos wrote:It is not overly crucial that 'amph'auton' has dropped out at Tyre since they are derfinitely termed 'hetairoi' and 'hypaspistai'. Further 'amph'auton' is completely neutral there is no 'closest' implied, it simply means 'around him';

Precisely. My point is that if the phrase is ever used to indicate some particular group it will be those close hetairoi who form Alexander's synhedrion.

agesilaos wrote: I suggest that it represents a distinct body because it is clear that the men reffered to are no random group who happen to be 'around him' at the time, (with the possible exception of Demaratas at Granikos), at Pelion they have both horses and shields, and are associated with the 'somatophylakes', probably the 'agema' rather than the Seven;

This is a problem passage for all views of the phrase. The biggest bug bear is the religious devotion to the Companion cavalry never carrying shields. The fact is, someone must have carried them for they had to fight on foot at some stage (Ptolemy famously dismounted to kill an Indian king). Alexander here has just finished frightening the bejesus out of the enemy with the drill of the phalanx... except for those on the hill. Alexander then sends his somatophylakes and tois amph' hauton hetairois, telling them to mount their horses with their shields. Two possibilities present for both groups: these are hypaspists of the agema or the Seven; the others are Companion cavalry or a posited sub group of the agema. If the somatophylakes are hypaspists they have to have brought horses with them on campaign and those horses are in their immediate vicinity. They may, as with the pursuit of Darius, mount cavalry mounts but Arrian, who explicitly says that when describing that pursuit, says nothing of the sort here. If tois amph' hauton hetairois are a subgroup of these hypaspists they, too, have their horses in immediate contact. I find neither of those overly attractive. If, on the other hand, both groups are the Seven and Alexander's close advisers - the hetairoi of his synhedrion or syntophoi - then the order to take their shields (from paides one imagines) and mount their horses is far easier to understand. Further, Alexander is then described as ordering his hypaspists across the river after having taken the hill with the aforementioned group all of whom are now tois hetairois!

agesilaos wrote:at Granikos it would seem that one of them at least is in close attendance to the king;

Again, this could go either way. Demaratus is either a part of an elite sub group (either guard or of his close adviser group) or an hetairos in Alexander's immediate vicinity. The context - the press and heat of battle - would favour the latter. That said if, as I favour, this phrase refers (if indeed it is specific) to the important advisers to the king (his synhedrion and likely many of his syntrophoi), this is precisely where would expect to find him. In the immediate period following Alexander's death this is exactly where we find the Friends of a Diadoch fighting: the synhedrion of these individuals made up their cavalry guard (were they not delegated command elsewhere). This practice, I believe, strongly reflects the practice under Alexander for his agema if not his ile basilikoi as well (it was hardly invented out of whole cloth). It is the logical place for such important individuals if they do not have another command.

agesilaos wrote:...again at Tyre they equal a ships complement, 120 or so and are described as hypaspists as well as companions, they are led by Admetos who is not the archihypaspist, that is Nikanor, nor is he called a chiliarch he is important enough to precede Alexander onto the wall...

And possibly the only attestation of the the commander of the agema outside of the explicitly stated Seleucus (Arr. 5.13.4) and Hephaestion (Diod. 17.61.3). No, these are not the 'regular' hypaspists commanded by Nikanor. They are certainly of the agema and they are led by that unit's commander. They may very well be what Xenophon refers to as the "lead troop" of that agema. Lord knows the Macedonians took pride in their precedence in the line and the agema will have been very little different. Their commander will have been the unit's commander and thus Admetus' position in leading the attack with the king in tow.

agesilaos wrote:...at Opis Alexander quits the platform with HHAA and the 'somatophylakes' , again this is most unlikely to be an ad hoc group; finally at VII 24 ii, we are told that HHAA had special couches to sit on when attending upon the king.

And so we come to the passages that may sort everything. Firstly Opis (7.11.2). Here Alexander, after his soliloquy, "quits the platform" at Opis as you describe. With him go hoi amph' auton hetairoi and the somatophylakes as you say. Now, this may indicate an "elite" group as you claim but it bears rather closer scrutiny. Earlier, just prior to Alexander's soliloquy, Arrian describes Alexander leaping down from his platform with tois amph' hauton hēgemosin whilst pointing out to the hypaspistais the ringleaders to arrest (7.8.3). There is no need to posit a special elite group of hegemones. That these are the same "officers" that depart with Alexander at 7.11.2 is a near certainty.

So to the couches with the silver feet. Alexander is described as distributing the Asian troops who'd arived with Peukestas, Menandraos and Philoxenos into the Macedonian battalions. This is no drinking party and those about him are his synhedrion whose council he is taking. That they have, by this stage, couches with silver feet is no surprise. These amph' hauton hetairois are no different to the tois amph' hauton hegemosin at Opis. I would suggest they are little different to the hetairous he summons to a meeting at Gaugamela (3.9.3) along with the commanders of the allies, mercenaries and such.

The evidence, to me, suggests that the amph' hauton hetairois are no elite guard group. They are, rather, the synhedrion of Alexander if they are any clearly distinct group.

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:41 am**

Overall, D'accord !

Paralus wrote:

The biggest bug bear is the religious devotion to the Companion cavalry never carrying shields. The fact is, someone must have carried them for they had to fight on foot at some stage (Ptolemy famously dismounted to kill an Indian king).

Yes, I agree. A man on foot in close combat without a shield is very soon going to be a dead man. It is certainly true that Macedonian cavalry of this period are neither described, or depicted as anything other than shieldless lancers - when mounted. However, in the heat of battle it would not generally be feasible to swap weapon suites, and Ptolemy having dismounted would likely have fought 'as is'. It is one thing to call for a spear (having broken one) from those about you, quite another for a servant, pais or groom to bring up a shield from the rear.....

The picture is further muddied by 'anachronisms' from later writers referring to contemporary practise when cavalry DID generally carry shields.

The same men, when assaulting a city, say, may be differently armed - with infantry spear, or the traditional Macedonian dual purpose spear (logche) and shield. ( There is evidence that the phalangites did not use the clumsy sarissa when not in set-piece battle, but rather the 'logche'/ short thrusting or throwing spear - see e.g. the duel with Coragus or Neoptolemus referring to the logche. )

Just for the record, 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......

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:41 am**

Xenophon wrote: However, in the heat of battle it would not generally be feasible to swap weapon suites, and Ptolemy having dismounted would likely have fought 'as is'. It is one thing to call for a spear (having broken one) from those about you, quite another for a servant, pais or groom to bring up a shield from the rear.....

And it is here that the situation becomes as clear as ancient Macedonian red wine. The action under discussion is described by Arrian at 4.24.1-5. it is important to note that Alexander divides forces and he takes "the hypaspists" plus the taxeis of Koinos and Attalos, the Agrianians and archers and half the mounted archers. One would surmise that since Arrian does not indicate a division of the hypaspists ('half' or a 'chilliarchy'), he has taken the lot. What then to make of Ptolemy's force for he attacks "accompanied by some hypaspists". If Alexander has the hypaspist corps who, then, are these blokes? Whoever they are they take Ptolemy's horse so as he can pursue the Indian and his men on foot. One suspects he was supplied with a shield for the close combat. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are as described: "shield bearers". Unless, of course, Arrian has muddled his source and Ptolemy had a detachment of hypaspists. Perhaps, as is often claimed, this is largely invention or exaggeration on Ptolemy's part and we aren't supposed to notice his hijacking hypaspists from under Alexander's corselet?

If matters aren't already complicated enough later, as the foot battle becomes dangerously intense, Alexander arrives and saves the day (24.5). Here the Great comes to the aid of his somatophylax "with his infantryman who had dismounted from their horses"! Now we have mounted infantry. Perhaps Alexander, seeing the increasingly desperate fight, mounted some of those hypaspists not purloined by Ptolemy and galloped to the hill. Perplexing indeed.

Xenophon wrote:The same men, when assaulting a city, say, may be differently armed - with infantry spear, or the traditional Macedonian dual purpose spear (logche) and shield. ( There is evidence that the phalangites did not use the clumsy sarissa when not in set-piece battle, but rather the 'logche'/ short thrusting or throwing spear - see e.g. the duel with Coragus or Neoptolemus referring to the logche. )

Without any doubt whatsoever. There is a cup of wine's chance at Alexander's table that Tyre was assaulted with sarisae. Ditto the Malloi town.

Xenophon wrote:Just for the record, 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......

Absolutely. In the years following Alexander's death they were always called the Friends (philoi) and Diodorus' use of such in his Alexander narrative pegs his source to a time when hetairos no longer applied to the king's select group. There developed a hierachy of these Friends - especially at the Seleukid court. Diodorus often describes Antigonos deciding matters of policy with his synhedrion of philoi. His close confidant, Boeotos, was a part of this and fought in his agema - as he would do so for the son, Demetrius, at Gaza where he would lose his life (along with quite a few of Antigonos' philoi). More on Alexander's hetairoi of the synhedrion later.

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:37 am**

Paralus wrote:

And it is here that the situation becomes as clear as ancient Macedonian red wine. The action under discussion is described by Arrian at 4.24.1-5. it is important to note that Alexander divides forces and he takes "the hypaspists" plus the taxeis of Koinos and Attalos, the Agrianians and archers and half the mounted archers. One would surmise that since Arrian does not indicate a division of the hypaspists ('half' or a 'chilliarchy'), he has taken the lot. What then to make of Ptolemy's force for he attacks "accompanied by some hypaspists". If Alexander has the hypaspist corps who, then, are these blokes? Whoever they are they take Ptolemy's horse so as he can pursue the Indian and his men on foot. One suspects he was supplied with a shield for the close combat. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are as described: "shield bearers". Unless, of course, Arrian has muddled his source and Ptolemy had a detachment of hypaspists. Perhaps, as is often claimed, this is largely invention or exaggeration on Ptolemy's part and we aren't supposed to notice his hijacking hypaspists from under Alexander's corselet?

If matters aren't already complicated enough later, as the foot battle becomes dangerously intense, Alexander arrives and saves the day (24.5). Here the Great comes to the aid of his somatophylax "with his infantryman who had dismounted from their horses"! Now we have mounted infantry. Perhaps Alexander, seeing the increasingly desperate fight, mounted some of those hypaspists not purloined by Ptolemy and galloped to the hill. Perplexing indeed.

Yes, a somewhat confusing reference, particularly as the Indian leader's Guards are referred to as 'Hypaspists'! Ptolemy leaves his horse with what Aubrey De Selincourt translates in the Penguin as "a man", so as to continue pursuit up a steep hill, the text has 'hypaspist' here, but whether this means literally a servant 'shieldbearer' (which may be titular rather than literal), or a member of the Bodyguard is anyone's guess, especially as we are receiving this second-hand via Arrian.

That neither Ptolemy here, nor Alexander earlier are fighting shielded is clearly implied from their wounds. Ptolemy is struck in the breast with the Indian's long spear, which pierces his cuirass/thorakes, but not his body, and a little earlier Alexander is wounded in the shoulder by a missile which also pierces his cuirass/thorakes, which prevents the wound being serious.
Clearly neither man was shielded at the time, or such wounds could not have occurred.

As to the 'mounted infantry', this troop type seems to have been a small elite force. We first hear of such in the pursuit of Darius [Arrian III.21.7] when A. dismounts some 500 cavalrymen ( presumably not Companion cavalry), and mounts in their place 500 of "the toughest and fittest officers of his infantry and other units, ordering them to keep their own arms and equipment..."
At [IV.23] we hear of " 800 Macedonian Foot ( 'Dimachae') whom he also mounted still carrying their infantrymen's shields "

These troops have their own name ('Dimachae', which may be loosely translated as 'dual fighters' i.e. on horseback or on foot ), and are what we might term 'dragoons'. We also learn from Curtius V.13.8 describing the pursuit of Darius that "These carried heavy armour/graviora arma on their backs, but rode on horses; when the occasion and situation demanded, they fought on foot. " - when shields would come into use. Pollux Onomastikon I.10 says that they were more lightly armed than normal infantry i.e. they did not carry the sarisa/spear ( probably therefore 'logche' again), and also that they were an invention of Alexander's.

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:36 am**

Xenophon wrote: Ptolemy leaves his horse with what Aubrey De Selincourt translates in the Penguin as "a man", so as to continue pursuit up a steep hill, the text has 'hypaspist' here, but whether this means literally a servant 'shieldbearer' (which may be titular rather than literal), or a member of the Bodyguard is anyone's guess, especially as we are receiving this second-hand via Arrian.

Most intriguing. Aub does fly fairly freely with his translation. The Landmark makes hypaspist plural: "some shield-bearers" (tōn hupaspistōn estin hous amph' auton). Anyone's guess indeed.

Xenophon wrote:As to the 'mounted infantry', this troop type seems to have been a small elite force. We first hear of such in the pursuit of Darius [Arrian III.21.7] when A. dismounts some 500 cavalrymen ( presumably not Companion cavalry), and mounts in their place 500 of "the toughest and fittest officers of his infantry and other units, ordering them to keep their own arms and equipment..."
At [IV.23] we hear of " 800 Macedonian Foot ( 'Dimachae') whom he also mounted still carrying their infantrymen's shields "

These troops have their own name ('Dimachae', which may be loosely translated as 'dual fighters' i.e. on horseback or on foot ), and are what we might term 'dragoons'. We also learn from Curtius V.13.8 describing the pursuit of Darius that "These carried heavy armour/graviora arma on their backs, but rode on horses; when the occasion and situation demanded, they fought on foot. " - when shields would come into use. Pollux Onomastikon I.10 says that they were more lightly armed than normal infantry i.e. they did not carry the sarisa/spear ( probably therefore 'logche' again), and also that they were an invention of Alexander's.

Yes, mentioned these earlier in the thread where they would seem to be an ad hoc formation resorted to by Alexander by virtue of the situation. Dimakhai is used the once by Diodorus (5.33.5) describing the fighting style of Celtiberians where it is used, as you say, to fight in two styles. If Alexander had a standing corps of these troops then it went out of fashion very quickly and that astute 'military historian' Arrian did not see fit to ever use the term or explain it throughout his Anabasis (perhaps it was never called that under Alexander). Each time (after that first ad hoc arrangement) he simply tells us of infantry who are mounted. Indeed, at 4.23.2 these again appear as an ad hoc arrangement. Alexander has the hypaspists, most of the Companion cavalry, the "taxies of the so called astheairoi" (tōn asthetairōn kaloumenōn tas taxeis), the archers and the mounted javelin men. When he crosses the Choes, he takes all the horsemen and "mounts 800 infantry on horseback with their shields". These men must have come from the infantry he took with him. If they were a dedicated unit created by the Great, unit surely Arrian might have mentioned them as being taken along? More likely Alexander 'invented' the idea or the use of such but they were never a separate or dedicated unit like the Agrianians, etc.

But this is to stray...

pothos.org

Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform

Re: Shield Bearer uniform