pothos.org

I'll await your "considered" reply but a few quickies...

agesilaos wrote:Off the top of my head I cannot think of a single instance of the Companion cavalry being deployed on foot with shields, nor do they appear to have been followed about the battlefield by a gaggle of servants lugging shields and presumably dorai or javelins to replace their xysta.

No, not in most 'pitched' battle situations. Our sources aren't in the habit of filling us in on just what the Companion cavalry did whilst the infantry fought and died in circumstances not favourable to cavalry. For instance Arrian tells us the cavalry were of no use to Alexander at Sagalassos. Presumably it watched on at a distance - more favourable ground in case of a retreat by the infantry. We might have to surmise the same for the Malloi town and all sieges (though we find a Philotas in command of the siege engines at Halicarnassus) unless they took part on foot. The descriptions of the Persian Gates encounter tell of a precipitous path taken by Alexander. Curtius tells of the steepness and snow drifts and yet the ile basilikoi (and one other 'tetrachy') are taken along. I would presume, given the description of the terrain, on foot.

It is reasonably clear that attendants did, in fact, follow the army in battle order. Again, this is not something the sources are interested in unless it impacts on the story. At Gaugamela the scythed chariots - aimed at Alexander's cavalry - made it through the lines and were dispatched by the "grooms (hippokomoi) of Alexander's army". Unless we presume they'd wandered from camp, they were stationed in the rear of the cavalry wing. If, as we are told, Philip reduced the cavalry servants to one these are those servants. I would assume they attacked these with their masters' spears rather than mounting footstools?!

As well there remains the identity of Ptolemy's "some hypaspists" at 4.24.3. A rereading indicates these may well not be infantry hypaspists. Arrian clearly has Alexander take the hypaspists as part of this force with him at 24.1. Ptolemy is then said to have "some" with him as he spies the Indian king on a hill. There has been no division of forces and Alexander arrives later to help "with his infantrymen who had dismounted from their horses" (oh dear... another digression). The hypaspist with Ptolemy is, in a close combat situation, handed the blokes horse to mind whilst Ptolemy sets off to fight on foot! I rather suspect these are, as Xenophon suggested some six months earlier in this thread, servants.

And Alexander's dismounting infantrymen? Presumably he remounted the 800 from 4.23.2 after having made camp overnight. Bosworth reads that description (of the infantry mounting with shields) as indicating that it is presumed the cavalry took shields on campaign to be used as the situation required.

agesilaos wrote: I am not suggesting these are the whole agema, only the special unit which would number fifty odd rather than 2-500. This is hardly a herd but would be enough to see off a small force of demoralised Illyrians.

We do not know how "small" this force was. Certainly it was large enough to "move to the mountains either side". It was also large enough to presume to attack the Macedonian column as it approached the river. Large enough that the phalanx had to pretend to attack it. It had to be significant enough to pose the threat Alexander saw it to be. Your surmise is that Alexander would counter it with the Somatophylakes and this "special unit" of fifty. A total of fifty-eight.

I would think that a unit of fifty odd is small enough to be tactically largely insignificant unless in very specialised roles (such as a modern commando team for example). Such is indicated by Alexander's need - demonstrated on four occasions we know of - to create a tactically significant version of the "elite" unit you propose.

agesilaos wrote:... a force that can act efficiently on foot and mounted suits the inner guard of graduated Pages, nobles to a man and likely possessed of their own horses.

Yet, somehow, dispossessed of those shields ever after? An infantry guardsman may possess a horse but cavalrymen - "nobles" to a man - not a shield?

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

Ptolemy could as easily have been killed on horse as his battalion was where the breach occurred. We are not told and so all is speculation but is is possible he either rode into the breach or did so on foot. We might also ponder the near immortal durability of attested taxiarchs throughout the campaign. Their casualty rate seems Wolverine-like.

Agesilaos wrote:

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

In pitched battle, there was no 'swapping' of roles - we don't hear of infantry units "mounting up" on the battlefield either. It is off the battlefield - during skirmishes, pursuits and withdrawals and the like - that some flexibility is called for in roles.
I think you have yet to establish that there WAS a 'special unit' which you have previously advocated was called 'hoi hetairoi amph 'auton' and it's many variations - the probability remains that this term was NOT the title of a unit. Here you are postulating that Alexander with just 50 or so 'HHAA' captured the hill in question, and that a significant force of Illyrian Taulantians fled from such a small force ? And that Alexander would order "half" i.e. just 25 men to dismount and fight on foot if the Illyrians held their ground ? This proposition also goes against what Arrian tells us directly, namely that it was the 'Hetairoi/Companions' who would "ride to the attack." ( presumably some 200 strong on this occasion, as Arrian states earlier.) Later, Alexander is joined by 2,000 Agrianes and archers, and this rearguard of some 2,200 is threatened in turn by the Illyrians from high ground, and the phalanx is forced to about-turn, cross the river back again, and threaten a major attack. Once again the enemy flee and this time Alexander arranges to have artillery set up on the river bank to cover the withdrawal of his rearguard of cavalry 'Hetairoi', Agrianes and archers....
Having previously described this unit as some sort of 'elite within an elite' i.e. a sub-unit of the Agema of the Hypaspists, you are now suggesting these hypothetical graduated pages were a mounted unit, with their own horses, who could alternately fight as infantry ? A sub-unit of the Companion cavalry 'Ile Basilikoi' ? Or are you suggesting your hypothetical 'HHAA' unit of 50 men was independent of both ?

If the latter, then there was indeed such a 'unit' namely the 50 or more, probably 19-20 year-old 'paides' who formed the innermost body-guard unit, whom we are specifically told of. No need to hypothesise another one of exactly the same size and function called 'HHAA'.
I think you are needing to do this because you believe that paides 'graduated' at 18, whereas the later epigraphic evidence suggests otherwise. If you abandon this supposition, then pretty much everything falls into place......(more below)

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

I don't think the 'forest' of sarissai was so dense as to block vision - each was several feet from its neighbour, and even in 'synaspismos'/locked shields four ranks deep, would be mostly empty space ! Photos of re-enactors with pikes demonstrate this conclusively.

Arrian (II.12)reports the death of the Taxiarch Ptolemy son of Seleucus at Issus, but does not say whether he was mounted or afoot, nor whether he died "in the front rank", nor indeed the manner of his death.

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

Firstly, whilst it is likely that the Athenian 'epheboi' institution initiated circa 335 BC was based on Makedonian practise, it is unlikely that the two were identical. In Athens, the 19 year-old epheboi were under training for a year, then were presented with arms by the State and as 20 year-olds were on full-time military service, such as outpost garrison duty - including combat if the occasion arose.

In Sparta, there was an older tradition whereby the 'epheboi' stage lasted longer, from puberty/14 -15 until 20 when the 'epheboi' underwent military training. In both cases adulthood began at age 21.

In Makedon, according to later inscriptions, military service (training) began at 15 ( around puberty) and continued until 55.
The 'epheboi' were the 19 and 20 year-olds, and at 21 males became adults, called 'neoi' which lasted until 30. I earlier pointed out that Athenian and Makedonian practise need not not be exactly the same, and in any case you earlier postulated that the obscure term 'meirakioneia' could refer to anyone between 13 and 20 ( and may have varied from place to place - see ante definitions of stages of manhood etc).

As I postulated earlier, if we use this knowledge to marry up with what other few snippets of information we have, then all falls into place. The 'paides' enter service at 15, and probably train at the school in Macedon for the next three years, thus the paides can be called 'pueri' etc. On becoming 'ephebes', the senior paides serve with the King as his innermost bodyguard, a 'unit' if you will, some 50 strong, who can be referred to by Curtius as a 'cohorte' ( unit), and who from their age can be called 'liberi adulti'/ grown up children, or 'noblissimi iuvenes' ( a iuvenus or iuniore in the Roman system was someone between 20 and 40 who served. Thereafter they became a 'seniore' and continued service until 55 - c.f. Greek service conditions . Thus 20 year old nobles who were still not quite adult can be called 'noblissimi iuvenes'. At the same time Kallisthenes can flatter them by calling them 'vires' - for they would be soon, on turning 21. At the same time they are still part of the corps of Paides, and will be until they actually turn 21, when as neoi/new men they graduate to the armed forces proper, but probably not to any one given unit......

No need to hypothesise an otherwise unknown unit entitled HHAA.....

More Trivia: If Diodorus is right, then the 'paides' were with Alexander long before the 50 arrive with Amyntas' re-inforcements after Gaugemala ( Diod. XVII.65.2), for he refers to the 'Basilikous paides' capturing Darius' tent after Issus ( XVII.36.5 )

Xenophon wrote:More Trivia: If Diodorus is right, then the 'paides' were with Alexander long before the 50 arrive with Amyntas' re-inforcements after Gaugemala ( Diod. XVII.65.2), for he refers to the 'Basilikous paides' capturing Darius' tent after Issus ( XVII.36.5 )

Hammond dismissed that latter reference as a "figment of Cleitarchus' imagination". He decides that Diodorus 17.65.2 (and Curtius' comparable note) are from the one source - Dyillus, "a competent Hellenistic historian". The former does not suit his argument; the latter does.

Amazing what one can do with non-extant sources when it is convenient.

Page-school??? Presumably those of your attested body are the 50 paides basilikoi brought by Amyntas, matured by an act of source neglect to 19-20 year olds, bizarre

At Pelion you will both have to decide just how many men you propose are assaulting the hill, all of whom are dismounted when ordered to assault and all of whom have shields to collect. The action is on a restricted front against the remnants of a demoralised foe. Think 30 Lions forwards bearing down on four or five Wallaby packs whose backs have already scarpered, or better still its the backs who remain while the Packs beat it Seriously, the mental state of the enemy is shown by the fact they they did not remain to fight, and it should not be forgotten that whilst Alexander and his party are charging out ahead the rest of the army is still in view and 'a clear and future danger'.

Re the use of cavalry in sieges, yes they are useless, and at IV 2, during the Sogdian revolt just before the attack on Kyropolis

For when the barbarians who occupied the two cities still uncaptured, saw the smoke rising from the city in front of them which was then on fire, (and some men, escaping even from the midst of the calamity itself, became the reporters of the capture which they had themselves witnessed,) they began to flee in crowds out of the cities as fast as each man could; but falling in with the dense body of cavalry drawn up in array of battle, most of them were cut to pieces.

And you can bet they did not dig saps or man the trenches either, just hang around on horses. Like i said I'll try to re-state things more clearly and answer thepoints raised in a more structured post; but it won't be til the weekend; I started a course in IT Support yesterday, you got the benefit of my lunch break, you lucky people. Consequently, I am going to have to put the hours in and avoid this much more interesting activity for a short while, it is not a subject i can wing and it is less interesting than an innings by Boycott...all three days!

agesilaos wrote:At Pelion you will both have to decide just how many men you propose are assaulting the hill, all of whom are dismounted when ordered to assault and all of whom have shields to collect. The action is on a restricted front against the remnants of a demoralised foe. Think 30 Lions forwards bearing down on four or five Wallaby packs whose backs have already scarpered, or better still its the backs who remain while the Packs beat it Seriously, the mental state of the enemy is shown by the fact they they did not remain to fight, and it should not be forgotten that whilst Alexander and his party are charging out ahead the rest of the army is still in view and 'a clear and future danger'.

To my mind it is far more likely in the hundreds than the tens and I think you rest far too much on a precision you see in the language. If we accept that the troops allocated the charge are all on foot and have to then 'mount' then so, too, are the Somatophylakes - all seven of them. If there is no good reason for members of the ile basilikoi to be dismounted, there is just little reason for the Somatophylakes to be dismounted. Unless of course you take the use of somatophulaxi here to indicate the agema who are all, necessarily, on foot. In which case you need to decide just how many men of the agema were so mounted. That Alexander would have to resort to mounting foot from the agema (and other units as elsewhere) again points to the tactical irrelevancy of a proposed "dual" unit of only fifty. It is, I think, not that overcomplicated. Arrian is simply describing the fact that Alexander wants his selected cavalry to take up their shields and charge the hill along with himself and the Somatophylakes. It is to noted that Arrian's imprecise language necessitates the reading between lines to realise that Alexander actually led the charge. As he is evidently not of this posited group, he seemingly charged sans shield.

In any case, I think your second instance (Granikos) is untenable.

agesilaos wrote:The incident of Alexander’s broken spear uis interesting as in this one passage we have, fighting in close proximity to the King, Aretis who is described as ‘anabolea twn basilikwn’ – someone who helps the king mount – a duty assigned to the Pages, and Demaratos of Corinth, who is ‘anhr’ a man and ‘twn amph’auton hetairwn’ . As Alexander is in the midst of the Basilike Ile this reference has not been noticed; it is perfectly valid to translate as ‘one of the Companions around him’ meaning just the Cavalry of the Companions, but this combination does seem to indicate a specific body in other instances. One objection is that Demaratos is described by Plutarch as weeping, ‘prebeutikos’ - like an old man when he sees Alexander on Dareios’ throne (Alex. 37 vii and 56 i) he is said to die of an infirmity (contra Heckel et al, not old age or natural causes). We are asked to believe that a man vigourous enough to be at the forefront of battle is an ancient six years later.

Unless we are to posit another Demaratos as an hetairos of Philip and Alexander, this is the Corinthian. Plutarch (Alex. 56.1) describes the Corinthian as ēdē presbuteros or "already old". Thus, in his anticipation at 37.7, he describes him as crying as old men will - for he is of that age. Yes, he died not long after and this was of some sickness (arrōstias). To exclude him from being able to take part in battle due to age is to exclude Parmenion and the many other attested "old farts" who did so. It is hardly surprising that an older man might contract a disease and die. Koinos did so in India for example and he was unlikely to be the age of Demaratos.

Demaratos at Granikos is, then, definitely not to be described as a recently graduated page. As such ton amph' auton hetairoi simply places him in spatial terms.

Agesilaos wrote:

Page-school??? Presumably those of your attested body are the 50 paides basilikoi brought by Amyntas, matured by an act of source neglect to 19-20 year olds, bizarre

I'm not sure what you mean by this, nor why you consider the idea 'bizarre' ? That the paides attended a school in Macedon is attested, and it makes sense for all sorts of reasons that it was the 19 and 20 year old 'epheboi' who were sent to the King to serve as an inner bodyguard....or just the 20 year-olds if Athenian practise that it was just these who went on active service reflected Makedonian practise. The latter case would also have a fresh group of paides sent to the King annually, as the 20 year-olds became adults/new men/neoi at 21. Since there were either 7 ( Arrian IV.13) or 9 (Curtius viii.6.15) on duty at a time, on a 7 day roster , and since there were enough to supply two shifts daily, ( Curtius viii.6.18 ), this implies a total of 100 or so paides present with the King (98 if Arrian's 7 is correct to be exact, 126 if Curtius' 9 is correct). A body of 100 or so, with some 50 becoming adults and 'graduating' each year would imply both 19 and 20 year-old age groups present with the King. This too is logical, for replacing all annually would leave no-one to teach the 'newbies' their duties etc, whereas having all the 'epheboi' present, would mean only half 'graduating' to adulthood at a time.

At Pelion you will both have to decide just how many men you propose are assaulting the hill, all of whom are dismounted when ordered to assault and all of whom have shields to collect. The action is on a restricted front against the remnants of a demoralised foe. .......... Seriously, the mental state of the enemy is shown by the fact they did not remain to fight, and it should not be forgotten that whilst Alexander and his party are charging out ahead the rest of the army is still in view and 'a clear and future danger'.

Whilst Arrian (I.6) calls the Thracians a "small force" ( De Selincourt) or "a few of the enemy" ( Chinnock), this is relative to their army of many thousands. Significantly, they are in sufficient numbers to form a credible 'block force' on a ridge or hill, and when they fall back, they do so to the mountains in "both directions". In addition Alexander quickly reinforces his force with a further 2,000 light troops. All this implies a fairly substantial enemy force, so like Paralus, I would estimate hundreds rather than tens.

As to the Thracians 'mental state', that is unknowable. Consider the possibility that they may have been a 'bait' force, who, by their occupation of the hill ( ground of tactical importance in modern parlance) force a reaction from Alexander. They then smartly withdraw, perhaps hoping to lure Alexander and his companions onward into a trap away from his main force. Again it is significant that Alexander does not pursue the 'fleeing' Thracians, but is content to simply hold the hill and advance no further, which might imply both that he recognised the possible ambush/trap, and that the enemy were in sufficient numbers as to make pursuit a risky business for a couple of hundred Companion cavalry.
The withdrawal seems to be in an organised manner be it noted, for they rejoin the main force on the mountains and return as part of the main force to the subsequent attack on Alexander's rearguard fairly promptly.

Trivia point: The Greeks counted the day of one's birth as the first birthday, whereas we moderns date from completion of one's first year. Thus a Greek 'two year old' is just one by our measure, and a Greek '21 year-old' is 20 years old by our measure. I am unsure of whether particular translators of both sources and inscriptions write "21" as a literal translation, or adjust the age to our measure - one would have to check text in each case to be certain......

Trivia point 2: You earlier stated, I believe, that combat was not among the listed duties of the paides, yet Diodorus has them capturing Darius' tent at Issus. Even if this is incorrect, it is evident that readers found the paides in a combat role believeable. It is hardly credible that such an elite guard unit of young nobles were incapable of combat - Aelian 'Varra Historiae' 14.48 states that they received military training, "ensuring that they would be ready for action".

After some 7 pages of this thread, a short summary might be helpful. The thread began with the question of what, if any, ‘uniform’ was worn by Hypaspists, and the reference to Amyntas and his arms and accoutrements of a Hypaspist ( including, be it noted, a ‘longche’ or short dual purpose spear) at his trial were discussed. On page 2 we digressed into the question of Heckel’s Macedonian ‘cursus honorum’, numbers in units – quickly split off into a thread of its own, dormant for now – and Heckel’s supposition that the Agema of the Hypaspists consisted of graduated ‘paides’/Royal Pages/Youths. The term “Agema” itself was discussed, with reference to Xenophon.

By this early point, the general reader’s eyes will have begun glazing over and the remaining 5 pages or so are probably only read by its three protagonists.

Paralus supported Heckel, though neither from Heckel, nor he personally, could produce any evidence that ‘paides’ graduated into the Agema.

Agesilaos and I were in agreement that in the absence of evidence, Heckel’s ‘cursus honorum’/career path was unlikely, because such a structure at this time in Macedon’s history was too rigid and “too organised”.

Discussion then moved on to the phrase ‘amph auton hetairoi’, and Agesilaos hypothesised that this was the title of a unit within the Agema, formed from ex-paides, which both Paralus and I disagreed with, for a variety of reasons, including once again a lack of evidence for such.

By page 4 there was a discussion of the names of various age groups and terminology for same in our sources, which continued onto page 5.

Page 6 digressed further to discuss certain ‘ad hoc’ units of mounted infantry and suchlike, and more discussion of “ hoi hetairoi amph’auton” and its several variants, with both Paralus and I taking the view that the phrase did not refer to a hypothetical unit, but rather the more nebulous varying numbers and people making up what may be termed Alexander’s entourage from time to time.

The discussion then went into detail of the instance of the action of Alexander against the Thracians at Pelion......which is its current point.

In a nutshell, Paralus supports Heckel’s view of a fairly formal Macedonian ‘cursus honorum’/career path, - noble sons ( but not all) are selected as paides, and go on to serve as rank-and- file in the Agema, and subsequently to senior positions - but Agesilaos and I don’t, not least for want of any evidence of such beyond enigmatic pieces open to all sorts of interpretation, and the fact that Theoppompus implies otherwise.

Agesilaos, while not supporting Heckel’s view, postulates that the ‘paides’ served from puberty to age 18, and then ‘graduated’ to form a unique guard unit as ‘Ephebes’ called “Hoi Hetairoi amph’auton”/ those companions closest about [Alexander], and its many variations. However, it should be pointed out that the concept of graduating to ‘adulthood’ at 18 is a very modern one ( enfranchisement at 18 only came to Britain in ,IIRC, 1969 and to the USA in the seventies as a result of the Vietnam War when it was felt that if conscripts were old enough to die for their country, then they should have the right to drink a beer and vote!)

To the ancients, one was a ‘child’ until age 21, when one ‘graduated’ to adulthood with its responsibilities , including serving the State’s Military, and privileges as a citizen.

My view is the same as Paralus regarding ‘HHAA’ i.e. the phrase does not describe a unit, or is a unit title, but rather those about the King at any given time; his entourage. C.f. Xenophon’s use of a similar phrase “peri ton basilea”/ those about the [Spartan] King(HellenicaVI.4.12) and similar variations of this phrase, as Arrian has of HHAA. I also disagree with Agesilaos regarding the age grouping of the ‘paides’, believing that it ran from 15 to 20 inclusive of the ‘ephiboi’ 19-20 year-olds [as evidenced by later inscriptions] and that it was these latter who guarded the King’s bed-chamber and served as the innermost Guards ( apart from the seven ‘somatophylakes’), still as ‘paides’. Upon becoming ‘neoi’/new men at 21 these then ceased to be ‘paides’ and moved on to the regular armed forces, likely as officers rather than rank-and-file, and not necessarily to any particular unit, though many will have gravitated to Guard units such as the Agema or Ile Basilikoi.

On the subject of Heckel’s ‘cursus honorum’, I agree with Agesilaos contra Paralus’ support – namely that such a career structure is just too formal for the time, especially as there is simply no evidence for it.

No doubt I will be subject to correction if I have mis-stated or misunderstood the positions of Agesilaos or Paralus, or correction of my inevitable bias, in short order !

Time to don one’s helmet and head for the trenches !!

Xenophon wrote:No doubt I will be subject to correction if I have mis-stated or misunderstood the positions of Agesilaos or Paralus, or correction of my inevitable bias, in short order !

Time to don one’s helmet and head for the trenches !!

No doubt. Other business to attend to first. And I'm still to get to that "chronology" thread...