Well, only two dozen or so posts here to respond to!........I shall make a prodigious effort to catch up, if I'm allowed to......
Post by Paralus » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:03 am
Xenophon wrote:That is very misleading, not to mention out of context. What I actually said at the time was: “On the contrary, I have no set viewpoint on the matter. I speak in terms of 'possibilities', 'probabilities' and 'ambiguities' and put forward what is consistent with the evidence.” Once only, in the context of showing that we don’t know what Neoptolemus was doing or where he was for a two year period, I wrote hypothetically –“There is no reason Neoptolemus could not have been archihypaspist for up to two years or so, or even a lesser period, between Alexander's death in June 323, and some time before the outbreak of hostilities, before he went to Armenia, in whatever capacity he was sent.” i.e. simply referring to a possibility.
No. You consistently argued that Plutarch's passage meant that Neoptolemus commanded hypaspists after the death of Alexander, not before as I argued. Now it is only a "possibility"?
Not at all ! The quotes above are accurate. You argued, purely on a ‘conviction’ basis, and not source evidence that Neoptolemus was appointed commander of the Hypaspists as a whole by Alexander after the death of Nicanor, son of Parmenion in 330 BC. I pointed out that not only is this not referred to in our sources, but no overall commander at all is referred to for the rest of Alexander’s reign. Further, the term ‘archihypaspist’, used once only by Plutarch was likely an anachronism, on which I seem to recall we agreed....
I said:
“It is you who are 'certain' that your views are correct, whilst I simply say that when all the evidence is viewed, on balance of probability it is unlikely that Neoptolemus ....”
....and....
“On the contrary, I have no set viewpoint on the matter. I speak in terms of 'possibilities', 'probabilities' and 'ambiguities' and put forward what is consistent with the evidence. It is you who are 'certain' that Neoptolemos was Nicanor's successor as 'archihypaspist'. (Nicanor is never referred to as such, so far as I am aware.) This 'certainty' is despite there being no evidence whatsoever for your assertion, and what there is tends to be against the proposition.”
That Neoptolemos was commander of the ‘Silver Shields’ after Alexander’s death is probable because their ultimate commander, Antigenes, was initially with Craterus in Cilicia [Justin XII.12.8].
It was thus always only a possibility, but one more probable than that Neoptolemos was appointed to overall commander of the Hypaspists by Alexander in succession to Nicanor.
Xenophon wrote:The only possible candidate for a Guard would be the 1,000 Persian Hypaspists raised by Alexander ( if they did in fact exist as an actual unit, which is doubtful, none of the other proposed Persian equivalents of Macedonian units, with Macedonian titles seem to have actually existed), that may have been part of Perdiccas' army in Egypt ( see the reference to Hypaspists at 'Camel's Fort ). Needless to say, there is no record of such a unit going to Europe, nor would we expect them to.
The Persian Guards are referred to by Phylarchus (as preserved by Athenaeus, Polyaenus and Aelian). Further more, they are depicted on the funeral cortege of Alexander. The Alexander sources also refer to them (beginning after the death of Darius - see, e.g., Olbrycht: "The Military Reforms of Alexander the Great during His Campaigns in Iran", Afghanistan and Central Asia, Miscellania Eurasiatica Crakoviensia Jrozjumiec Eurazji, Krakow, 2007). It is rather more certain than not that this Persian guard troop existed.
I don’t think so. The Persian Guards depicted on Alexander’s funeral car are called ‘melaphoroi’/ apple bearers i.e. the old Achaemenid Royal Guard of Darius, and that suggests the Persian ‘Hypaspists’ and other units to be given Macedonian titles never came into existence. ( see also Arrian VII.29.4)
Paralus wrote:
What is very, very far from certain is whether Neoptolemus, who refused service under a pen-pushing Greek, would agree to command a troop of barbarian guards. Less certain is whether the Argyraspides would simply pass off the court and its kings to Persians. It beggars belief that the Macedonians would appoint somatophylakes to a king (or kings) that they felt so undeserving of a Macedonian Guard unit.
In the ‘Neoptolemos’ thread the assumption was that Neoptolemos was commander of the ‘Silver Shields, not an enigmatic ‘Persian Guard/Agema and Hypaspists/Silver Shields’who are never heard of other than as a proposition by Alexander.
Incidently, another strong piece of evidence that the ‘Silver Shields’ did not provide any sort of personal ‘Royal Guard’ to Philip III/Alexander IV is that after the death of Alexander we don’t hear of the infantry‘Agema’ who provided the King’s personal Guard, nor is any such unit referred to in Europe....
The circumstantial evidence of other army functionaries speaks against such. Kings not requiring Macedonian guards - and supposedly below the interest of the Argyraspides - certainly did not need senior army adjutants. I'm afraid the evidence does not back your claim that the Argyraspides would not serve their kings as a guard unit. They obeyed all instructions issued in their name and it is a stretch to claim that had they been required as the kings' guards they would have refused.
Well, they evidently refused to serve Eumenes in a bodyguard capacity – he had to raise his own ‘Hypaspists’.
Not army functionaries at all, but rather Court functionaries – there’s a difference. And I’m afraid the actual evidence does indeed back my claim, and not the suppositions you make without evidence. The ‘Silver Shields’ are never referred to as ‘Royal Bodyguards’ after Alexander’s death, and are recorded as refusing to serve lesser men in that function ( see previous posts)......but that does not mean they didn’t continue to be loyal to the Kings. As I said earlier,how could they do otherwise, for it would have been open mutiny and lead to extermination.
Wh ile on these troops and Heckel's disagreement with Bosworth, that disagreement comes down to Heckel's view of what became of the Argyraspides following Opis and Babylon. I disagree with that view given the details of the Babylonian Settlement though you clearly have a different view of this.
I don’t understand what you are referring to here.
In any case you are mistaken regarding Heckel’s views. He is yet another who does not agree with Bosworth’s interpretation of the Greek( which you and Agesilaos follow) :
Heckel p.69 “ The Wars of Alexander the Great” says of Craterus’ veterans “
...Some of them would indeed reach their homeland [ i.e. the 6,000 we are told of]
but only to fight some more. Others would not advance beyond Cilicia [ The 4,000 not taken across by Craterus]
before becoming embroiled in the Wars of the Successors.”