pothos.org

Hi

just a quick question

Reading Arrian Chapter 3, part 11 or 12, where in the thick of fighting at Gaugamela, some of the Persian forces got through Macedonian lines but were taken care of by the Royal guard or the grooms, I was just wondering if the grooms that Arrian mentions would equate to the royal pages or young soldiers being trained, ie. youths like Hermalaous (who was involved in the plot of the pages.)

Cheers,
Dean

Interesting question, Dean but on reviewing the Greek I doubt it. Arrian III 13 vi

Alla kai touton hoi te hippokomoi tes alexandrou stratias kai hoi hypaspistai hoi basilikoi ekratesan.
And these were destroyed by the hippokomoi (grooms) of Alexander’s Army and the Royal Hypaspists.

‘hippokomoi’ is a common Greek word meaning a groom and since these are described as those of the army rather than as Royal they must, I think be ordinary servants. The epithet Royal fits with the Hypaspists and cannot I think have been transposed from the hippokomoi. The Pages are consistently ‘paides’.

One possible exception being that Aretis of whom Alexander begged a spear at the Granikos (Arr I 16 vi) who is described as ‘anaboleus’ or a groom who assists in mounting, such a task and position in the Royal Eile may suit a Page but it is surely more likely that this was just a minor but honourable office given to a fully fledged member of the Companion Cavalry. This man had broken his own spear and was fighting on with the butt, not the actions of an unblooded stripling. Further in the same group is Demaratus of Corinth an inner guard (hetairos amph’auton) and as afriend off Philip at the time of Buchephalos’ purchase surely too old to be a Pais Basilikos.

There remains a problem the hypaspists, particularly the Royal Hypaspsists are busy inclining to the right and surely in the wrong place to deal with chariots attacking the phalanx, it is possible that ‘hypaspistai’ has displaced ‘paides’ either through Arrian’s carelessness or a later copyist’ amendment. But neither hypothesis may be susceptible to proof now.

agesilaos wrote:Interesting question, Dean but on reviewing the Greek I doubt it. Arrian III 13 vi

Alla kai touton hoi te hippokomoi tes alexandrou stratias kai hoi hypaspistai hoi basilikoi ekratesan.
And these were destroyed by the hippokomoi (grooms) of Alexander’s Army and the Royal Hypaspists.

‘hippokomoi’ is a common Greek word meaning a groom and since these are described as those of the army rather than as Royal they must, I think be ordinary servants. The epithet Royal fits with the Hypaspists and cannot I think have been transposed from the hippokomoi. The Pages are consistently ‘paides’.

One of those annoying passages of Arrian. The chariots were aimed at the Companion Cavalry as best I can see. Alexander crabs forward and Darius launches them before they are of no use. The Agrianians and javelin men are described as pulling them down in front of the Companions. That they overlapped into the infantry (hypaspists) is quite likely for the Macedonians were to break ranks "wherever they attacked"

agesilaos wrote:There remains a problem the hypaspists, particularly the Royal Hypaspsists are busy inclining to the right and surely in the wrong place to deal with chariots attacking the phalanx, it is possible that ‘hypaspistai’ has displaced ‘paides’ either through Arrian’s carelessness or a later copyist’ amendment. But neither hypothesis may be susceptible to proof now.

Busy inclining to the right indeed. At 3.11.9 Arrian describes the agema of the hypaspists as posted hard against the Companions with the other regiments of the hypaspists under Nicanor to their left. As you've noted above Arrian then switches - if he indeed refers to hypaspists - to calling this unit the hypaspitae basilikoi. Another of his annoying habits. Whilst, on balance, I'd agree with these being the paides basilikoi - the agema of the hypaspists will have kept to their king - it doesn't exclude the rear ranks of the royal hypaspists / agema of the hypasists putting away those they'd let pass. I think you're right about the possibility of proof though.

Hi Agesilaos,
thanks a lot for clearing it up- when I came across it, I couldn't remember having seen the term "groom" used before and wasn't sure if it was used as another translation for page but there you go.

Cheers!