Rereading fire from heaven

Recommend, or otherwise, books on Alexander (fiction or non-fiction). Promote your novel here!

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by Paralus »

Oh dear! I see another gratuious personal poke intended to discredit a point of view by discrediting the author. How utterly unsurprising.
Apologies for any perceived antagonism, though none was intended.
And, after having so specifically "played the man", an entirely general, non-specific "apology". Par for the course really.

Apologies for any percieved antagonism here, it isn't intended; more a critique of style really.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by agesilaos »

Bagoas cannot have held any command over European troops without it being mentioned as a grievance at Opis; in fact the complaints are that Persians have entered Macedonian units towhit the named individuals in the Agema and al arger proportion in the Fifth Hipparchy; were Bagoas in the military he must have been mentioned not least because the complaint that Alexander allows the barbarians to kiss him but not his own troops is clearly a retrospective jibe at Bagoas' kiss.

Having established that, it follows that the trierarchies in the Indica are of the honourary type for funding ships not actual commands. The Athenians used the same word but the status of the former would have distinguished them from the latter, no one would think that Bill Gates was actually going to sail the ship he had funded. :shock:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:How long should the 14-year old Royal Pages have lasted? Nevertheless, it is widely attested that they fought in the battles.
I'd be interested in the source attestations describing "14-year old Royal Pages" that "fought in the battles".
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by marcus »

agesilaos wrote:Bagoas cannot have held any command over European troops without it being mentioned as a grievance at Opis; in fact the complaints are that Persians have entered Macedonian units towhit the named individuals in the Agema and al arger proportion in the Fifth Hipparchy; were Bagoas in the military he must have been mentioned not least because the complaint that Alexander allows the barbarians to kiss him but not his own troops is clearly a retrospective jibe at Bagoas' kiss.
I agree that Bagoas is unlikely to have led European troops - but see my earlier comment that I would happily accept that he had been inducted into the agema, which would not have meant leading troops, but would have meant riding alongside Alexander in battle - as Darius' own brother did after 330. Therefore he would presumably have been included in the general "Persians" who entered Macedonian units.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by Taphoi »

Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:How long should the 14-year old Royal Pages have lasted? Nevertheless, it is widely attested that they fought in the battles.
I'd be interested in the source attestations describing "14-year old Royal Pages" that "fought in the battles".
It is stated explicitly at Curtius 8.6.4.

In addition one of them (Pausanias the younger) virtually committed suicide by flinging himself against the enemy in battle (Diodorus 16.93.6). He was a younger Page at the time because the elder Pausanias (Philip's assassin) was also a Page then and had just been supplanted in Philip's affections by Pausanias the younger. Justin 9.6.5 says Pausanias the elder was in his puberty at the time (primis pubertatis annis).

Aelian, Varia Historia 14.48 has Philip execute a Page called Archedamus, because he took his armour off, when he had been told to keep it on. The context (plundering) suggests the aftermath of a battle.

Best wishes,

Andrew
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by Semiramis »

Hi Andrew,
It is probably wrong to suppose that Bagoas did not fight in Alexander's wars. It was quite normal for Persian Royal Eunuchs to fight in wars. Alexander dealt with a Eunuch commander at Gaza. The other Bagoas was a general in the war against Nectanebo in Egypt before he became Chiliarch. Xenophon, who personally collaborated with Persian Royal Eunuchs, wrote that despite Persian Royal Eunuchs being physically weaker than other men "steel is a great leveller and makes the weak man equal to the strong in war", clearly implying that eunuchs fought in hand-to-hand combats. It is important not to let the silly modern stereotype that Eunuchs were all fat harem attendants get the better of our judgement of the evidence.
Although I was familiar with the stories of Batis and the earlier Bagoas, I didn't realize eunuchs fought in the Persian army. Thanks for the Xenophon quote. With the benefit of hindsight - why not? I'm not entirely convinced that Alexander's Bagoas fought in the army - although I think its very possible. He was pretty much given to Alexander as a 'gift' by one of the men who had killed Darius. Do you really gift soldiers of the Persian army? He sounds like his status at the time he met Alexander was closer to that of a slave. Of course, that doesn't preclude that he got the necessary training and joined the ranks afterwards.
Note that you didn't get to be a trierarch purely through being Alexander's lover, because Roxane is not in the list!
I have to address this. One feels the odds would have been stacked against her being female. Patriarchy, few records of female commanders, no other females in the list etc... to point out the obvious. I know of one female trierarch under Xerxes from Lydia. But still, the Persian army was not exactly a bastion of gender-blind meritocracy. Further, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Macedonians would have allowed women in high army positions (however honorific) just because there were precedents under Persian Great Kings. I know there is record of Alexander's Illyrian half-sister fighting in battle. But the Illyrians were virtual barbarians weren't they? :)

There is also record of Macedonians getting a bit too excited upon seeing a military display by a unit of female soldiers, who had to be quickly removed from out of sight lest they be raped by their Macedonian male comrades. I know the sources say that a satrap organized this for Alexander's amusement. But I think it's entirely possible that this was a genuine army unit that had to be explained away in some manner to a baffled Macedonian/Greek/Roman audience. All in all, I just don't feel Roxanne had the same opportunities in a military sense as Alexander's male lovers did.
The counter examples are legion in both ancient and modern times. There's Alexander's own lyre-playing, Nero's various performances, Commodus and his gladiatorial exploits, Madonna and her shows, Condoleezza Rice with Aretha Franklin.
About important people and public performances, I am quite open to the suggestion. However, I can't draw parallels between most of your examples and that of Bagoas. Alexander was given a humiliating public telling off by Phillip for behaving like a female prostitute and he never played the lyre in company again, Nero was widely regarded as crazy, Madonna is only a high-ranking person because she's an entertainer by profession and Condi... agh... I can't believe you even brought that up! Some of us like to pretend the Bush era never happened. :D
It was a set of games - i.e. on the model of the Olympic events. Olympic victors were rather high status individuals in the Greek world and Alexander himself is reported to have considered (and dismissed) the possibility of competing (however an earlier Macedonian monarch did compete).
About the earlier Macedonian king competing in the Olympics - I think high-ranking individuals sent chariots to race. I didn't think they actually physically participated themselves. They were the patrons.

So, I have to agree with Amyntoros that the description of Bagoas competing for a prize does rankle with the idea that he was a very wealthy individual. But then, I don't want to discount sentimental or romantic reasons for him to perform for Alexander. Yeah, what a sop. :D

Hi Alexias,
I think that you are assuming here a) that the Indians had ships capable of river warfare and that they engaged in such, and b) that there were any cities close to a wide river, with a tendancy to flood, that needed attacking by water. With the army on both sides of the river, it's unlikely that there was any water-borne fighting.
I think most large Indian cities were deliberately located next to big rivers. The rivers were basically the lifeblood of the cities in terms of agriculture, travel and trade. India was densely populated, so the chances of coming across a city during river travels would have been high. I'm not sure about their naval capablities at the time but I know there were warships called 'bajras' in much later times that could do some serious damage. Some are still around, but no longer utilized for military purposes of course. :)
We know that eunuchs fought and hunted but that they lacked the strength of full men. Given that Bagoas was a young man, a eunuch, and a dancer, he is likely to have been slightly built. How long would he have lasted as a soldier in hand to hand combat?
I don't see any clash between being a dancer and being a warrior. It may be possible that Bagoas was competing against (other?) army boys/men. Or would they have been professional dancers?
The point of the Carmanian incident though was that Alexander kissed Bagoas in public. Is he likely to have risked treating an army officer as a boy in front of men he might have been leading in battle? They are hardly likely to have much respect for him if Alexander did. Even if they had affection for him, they are more likely to have considered him a mascot.
I don't know that Alexander showing his affection to his male or eunuch lovers in public would have been seen as demeaning to them. If the Athenian account of bearded high-ranking Macedonian men openly making love in drunken parties at Phillip's palace is anywhere near accurate, a kiss would have hardly contributed to loss of respect.
Yes, it would have been unthinkably shameful for Alexander to kiss Roxane in public, especially with affection as he obviously did Bagoas. To expose her to the sexual glances of other men would have been effectively saying 'here you are, come and get it' (sorry, that's crass), but he would have been seen to be saying that she was a harlot and available to any man. Within living memory, it was bad manners for a husband to kiss his wife in public with affection, other than a perfunctionary peck on the cheek, which I doubt Roxane would have even got. As the king's wife, her reputation had to be utterly beyond reproach. To every man except her husband a woman had to be an untouchable virgin. A different set of mores!
With regards to Roxanne's public visibility, I'm not sure all societies had the same view regarding this. Yes, the thought of the Queen producing another man's child as the Royal heir was intolerable. But Persian royal women did interact with other men, how sexual these men's (or the women's) glances, is anyone's guess. Darius' mother, for example directly interacted with Alexander and Hephaistion. All were heavily involved in palace intrigue and factions with other high-ranking men. Some satrapies were ruled by women. Royal women had their own estates. I have already mentioned the Lydian trierarch. All of these positions would require a degree of interaction with other men. I remember Iranian academics being highly annoyed at the wedding scene in Stone's movie for having Roxanne in a face veil. Apparently this practice did not exist in Iran or Central Asia back then and presents an altogether misleading picture of the role of Persian Royal women.

While the queen was expected to be visible and engaged, I agree with you that she would have been expected to maintain her Queenly bearing during all public engagements (just like the King, Princes, Princesses and nobles). I think the kiss to Bagoas was during an informal moment with a festive atmosphere where most people were probably drunk. It can be argued that even then it took a bit of encouragement from the army ie Alexander didn't originally intend a public display of affection. The clash here would have been between the highly formal Persian royal protocols and the rather more rowdy Macedonian (drunken) army behaviour. :)

Hi Agesilaos,
Bagoas cannot have held any command over European troops without it being mentioned as a grievance at Opis; in fact the complaints are that Persians have entered Macedonian units towhit the named individuals in the Agema and al arger proportion in the Fifth Hipparchy; were Bagoas in the military he must have been mentioned not least because the complaint that Alexander allows the barbarians to kiss him but not his own troops is clearly a retrospective jibe at Bagoas' kiss.
I may have read this paragraph wrongly. I thought the kiss referred to the Persian practice of proskynesis? It was a socially-tiered process. Higher-ranked individuals were allowed to kiss the Great King's face. Surely, that would be a more politically charged grievance?
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by agesilaos »

Marcus, I just don't think that Bagoas would not have been mentioned by name he was Alexander's boy and just if not more important than the dead King's brother. Semiramis, I think that it is not proskynesis that is meant as the Macedonians were rabidly against it, nor is it clear just what was entailed, I am away from my texts but I think it was not the custom to kiss the King but one's hand, as shown at Beistun and that degree was shown by how low one bowed. I will have to try and find the ancient text that details it and edit
When the Persians meet one another in the roads, you can see whether those who meet are of equal rank. For instead of greeting by words, they kiss each other on the mouth; but if one of them is inferior to the other, they kiss one another on the cheeks, and if one is of much less noble rank than the other, he falls down before him and worships him.
[Herodotus, Histories 1.134]
From Livius. whatever; these rituals are amongst the populace the etiquette at court is shown at Persepolis, not Beistun, oops and Jonah gives a fair summary on his site, the King was divinely appointed and stood so far above even the highest nobles that they were allowed to blow him a kiss with a slight bow, so the Macedonians must have meant the Bagoas incident as they get to physically kiss the King in the reconciliation, no tongues one hopes! :shock:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by dean »

Hello,

with regards to prostration and kissing and what have you, curiously the episode that springs to mind is found in Arrian, book four shortly after Cleitus' murder when a "golden loving cup" is past around and those in aggreement with prostration drank and got up and prostrated themselves before Alexander and were given a kiss.
It is Callisthenes who approaches Alexander without prostration and is not given a kiss and subsequently comments "I leave one kiss the poorer." Alexander was, at the time in conversation with Hephaestion and yet I would guess that if, by this time, Alexander was wanting to get rid of Callisthenes, then Alexander not noticing Callisthenes could have been intentional blanking,

It is, I think, after the mutiny at Opis, that Callines speaks up and says the soldiers were angry because the "barbarians" had been made "kinsmen" and could kiss Alexander and they couldn't and so Alexander decided from then on that they too could do the same.
carpe diem
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by amyntoros »

Semiramis wrote:
With regards to Roxanne's public visibility, I'm not sure all societies had the same view regarding this. Yes, the thought of the Queen producing another man's child as the Royal heir was intolerable. But Persian royal women did interact with other men, how sexual these men's (or the women's) glances, is anyone's guess. Darius' mother, for example directly interacted with Alexander and Hephaistion. All were heavily involved in palace intrigue and factions with other high-ranking men. Some satrapies were ruled by women. Royal women had their own estates. I have already mentioned the Lydian trierarch. All of these positions would require a degree of interaction with other men. I remember Iranian academics being highly annoyed at the wedding scene in Stone's movie for having Roxanne in a face veil. Apparently this practice did not exist in Iran or Central Asia back then and presents an altogether misleading picture of the role of Persian Royal women.
The belief that ancient Persian women were not veiled is part and parcel of the understanding that they had more freedom than respectable Greek women of the period. I can fully appreciate why Iranian academics object to the idea because people today associate veiled women with "loss" of power and freedom. It's not necessarily so. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, who has an article in Responses to Oliver Stone's Alexander wrote an absolutely wonderful book on the subject of ancient veiling, Aphrodite's Tortoise: The Veiled Women of Ancient Greece (This is the paperback, not yet released). I couldn't possibly paraphrase all the evidence in the book although – getting a little bit off-topic – I have to mention a tidbit about the women of Thebes who wore a veil which covered the whole face with holes for the eyes. This eventually became very popular in Alexandria and Llewellyn-Jones surmises that it might have travelled there with the captives in Alexander's army. Oh, and the reason it was so popular is that it gave women more freedom to go about business in public – they didn't have to use one hand to hold a veil in front of their face! Anyway – and back on topic – I will quote LJ on royal Persian women from the Responses book:
Moreover, the high status of royal females was reflected in their inaccessibility, their removal from general public view. This does not negate any financial power or autonomy they might have held; nor does it suggest that they lived in secluded segregation. While women could be holders and maintainers of their own lands and estates, while they could manage their own finances and travel independently of the king, these capabilities do not necessarily indicate a desire on their part to be public figures. Common misconceptions of "harem" popularly incorporate a lack of freedom for women. But "freedom" in the modern sense of the word does not equate with ancient concepts of public visibility. True power and prestige lay in a woman's removal from an overtly public life. The Greek reports of royal and noble women progressing through the empire within their curtained carriages is not fantasy, it is an observation of Persian custom in which women of status augmented their privileged social position by separating themselves from the common gaze. There was no honor in being exposed. To intrude upon a woman's privacy was therefore tantamount to an insult.
The above reinforces your belief (which I share) that Alexander would not have kissed Roxanne in public. It doesn't, of course, explain why Roxane was publicly visible (and/or danced) at the banquet in Bactria. It goes against both Greek and Persian customs to have respectable women as part of the entertainment. It could be that Bactrian customs were somewhat different from those of Persia, or just that Alexander and his companions, as victor-conquerors, were treated as part of the privileged, elite inner-circle of Oxyartes family. Or maybe Alexander commanded the appearance of the women. Could be, although I'm sure many members would object to that idea. :wink: Whatever the reason, it's my suspicion that this was the last time Roxane's face was seen in public by the Macedonians. When describing her beauty Plutarch uses the expression "those who served with Alexander said" rather than his more commonly used "the Macedonian's say". I think that "those who served with Alexander" were the men by his side at the banquet rather than the whole army. Only my opinion of course because none of us can really know.

And finally back to the wedding veil. Again I'll quote from Responses:
In a similar vein, Oliver Stone’s own voice could dictate design decisions. Beavan took pains to ensure that Roxane's wedding robes, for example, followed the ancient Near-Eastern precedent in which the bride wore red; her head was crowned with a high cap, covered with a red veil, and her face was obscured beneath a metallic burqa'a, all of which were feasible garments for a Bactrian princess, carefully based on finds of fourth-century Scythian female dress. As Beavan recalls, "When I researched Roxane's wedding robe, I found that Afghan (sic) techniques haven't changed much in two thousand years. They sewed gold into clothes, which we did both for Roxane and Alexander's wedding costumes. But at Stone's insistence Roxane's headdress was further augmented with an anachronistic crown of flowering lotus buds replicated from the headdress of Quen Pu-abi of Sumer which he had seen during an early research trip to the British Museum. That the headdress predated Alexander's marriage to Roxane by almost two and a half millennia was not an issue for Stone; such is the clout of the auteur.
Sorry to go on for so long about something which is probably of little interest to most Pothosians, but I have a passion for the social and cultural aspects of the period! Sometimes I just can't keep it hidden … :lol:

Best regards
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
athenas owl
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
Location: US

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by athenas owl »

Thank you amyntoros for the wonderful post.

LJ's article was great.

This:
But at Stone's insistence Roxane's headdress was further augmented with an anachronistic crown of flowering lotus buds replicated from the headdress of Quen Pu-abi of Sumer which he had seen during an early research trip to the British Museum. That the headdress predated Alexander's marriage to Roxane by almost two and a half millennia was not an issue for Stone; such is the clout of the auteur.
Reminded me of the famous ram in the thicket from Ur that graced Olympias' room in the film. :)

Though in all of the treasures taken from excavations south of Macedonia (ancient) I think the most intriguing to me was from the Lefkandi tomb, a gorget if memory serves, that was nearly a thousand years old and had come from Babylonia originally before it was buried with a woman. So, the idea that the ancients didn't appreciate older things would be wrong...though how Olympias might have come by that particular ram always amused me.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:It is stated explicitly at Curtius 8.6.4.
It is conjectured that the boys entered the “school” between the ages of thirteen to fifteen with the common guess being fourteen. Curtius here explains the "institution' of the pages in this discourse and lists examples of the duties pages, over their term, will perform. Arrian (4.13.1) does something similar. Nothing in either excursus explains at what age a page performed any or all of the duties so described.
Taphoi wrote:In addition one of them (Pausanias the younger) virtually committed suicide by flinging himself against the enemy in battle (Diodorus 16.93.6).
Diodorus actually describes this Pausanias as stepping in front of the king and receiving those blows meant for him. The language indicates Pausanias fighting on foot and so, therefore, Philip. It is not very conceivable that Philip, in battle on foot, is being guarded by what might be described as “callow youths”; even less so a troop of fourteen year-old "infantrymen". The troops tasked for this are the king’s foot guard – the agema of the hypaspists that we see documented under Alexander. It is more likely that this Pausanias was a member of such.
Taphoi wrote:Justin 9.6.5 says Pausanias the elder was in his puberty at the time (primis pubertatis annis).
Justin also describes this Pausanias, at the time of Philip’s murder, as a “youth” (adulescens). This hardly suits your somewhat dogmatic view (expressed elsewhere) that this Pausanias was, at this time, a somatophylax or one of the seven. Diodorus is preferable here: Pausanias was indeed a “bodyguard” (somatophylax / doryphoroi in Plutarch) and a member of the agema of the hypaspists amongst whom he’d been “advanced”.
Taphoi wrote:Aelian, Varia Historia 14.48 has Philip execute a Page called Archedamus, because he took his armour off, when he had been told to keep it on. The context (plundering) suggests the aftermath of a battle.
Aelian Varia Historia 14.48:
Philip taking the Sons of the noblest in Macedonia, made them wait upon his person, not in contempt of them, or to affront them, but that he might make them ready and expedite for action. To such of them as were addicted to Luxury, or performed his Commands remissly, he is said to have been very severe. Thus he did beat Aphthonetus, because upon a march, being thirsty, he left his rank, and went out of the way to an Inne. Archedamus he put to death for putting off his Arms, when he had commanded him to keep them on.
I don’t see the context.

It is far more likely that the pages "did their time" in servitude - like a slave - to the king and that his duties will have reflected the realities of his age. That reality does not readily suggest infantry work at age fourteen. The pages' initial combat experience will likely have been on horseback and in support of the cavalry. He will have progressed to infantry work at the age of 18 or so, as with the Athenian ephebe, and joined the agema of the hypaspists. Here will have become one "the young noblemen who formed his [the king's] usual retinue" (Curtius 8.2.35).

We do not know when the pages were first taken into combat and it seems unlikely that a fourteen year old strippling would be terribly useful. The one clear description of such is at Arrian 4.16.6 where some of the paides basilikoi took part in a cavalry battle with the Scythians. Interestingly, none of them are recorded dead amongst the 67 or so recorded dead.

I would suggest that the pages took to battle on horseback initially and likely not at fourteen. I would also agree with Hammond in that the attestation of pages arriving in Diodorus (50 of them) likely represent the “higher year class(es)” and are not representative of the entire “school”.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by Paralus »

marcus wrote:I agree that Bagoas is unlikely to have led European troops - but see my earlier comment that I would happily accept that he had been inducted into the agema, which would not have meant leading troops, but would have meant riding alongside Alexander in battle - as Darius' own brother did after 330. Therefore he would presumably have been included in the general "Persians" who entered Macedonian units.
agesilaos wrote:Marcus, I just don't think that Bagoas would not have been mentioned by name he was Alexander's boy and just if not more important than the dead King's brother.
I'd go with Agesilaos here. Arrian (7.6.4-5) lists those who'd been installed into the agema "Cophen, son of Artabazus, Hydarnes and Artiboles, sons of Mazaeus, Sisines and Phradasmenes, sons of Phrataphernes, viceroy of Parthia and Hyrcania, Histanes, son of Oxyartes and brother of Alexander's wife, Roxane, as well as Autobares and his brother Mithrobaeus". While nothing suggests that this list is complete, were Alexander's "favourite" a member I'd expect it to be noted. Elswhere (the revolt in Bactria / Soghdia) we have Artabazus named as a commader with Craterus' column. On balance, it say Bagoas was niether a member of the agema nor did he command any troops worthy of note.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by Taphoi »

Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:It is stated explicitly at Curtius 8.6.4.
It is conjectured that the boys entered the “school” between the ages of thirteen to fifteen with the common guess being fourteen. Curtius here explains the "institution' of the pages in this discourse and lists examples of the duties pages, over their term, will perform. Arrian (4.13.1) does something similar. Nothing in either excursus explains at what age a page performed any or all of the duties so described.
The logical inference being that all the Pages shared in all the duties throughout their period as Pages.
Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:In addition one of them (Pausanias the younger) virtually committed suicide by flinging himself against the enemy in battle (Diodorus 16.93.6).
Diodorus actually describes this Pausanias as stepping in front of the king and receiving those blows meant for him. The language indicates Pausanias fighting on foot and so, therefore, Philip. It is not very conceivable that Philip, in battle on foot, is being guarded by what might be described as “callow youths”; even less so a troop of fourteen year-old "infantrymen". The troops tasked for this are the king’s foot guard – the agema of the hypaspists that we see documented under Alexander. It is more likely that this Pausanias was a member of such.
Actually, it was precisely the duty of the Pages to guard the king against armed threats: that is why the Pages Conspiracy against Alexander was feasible.
Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:Justin 9.6.5 says Pausanias the elder was in his puberty at the time (primis pubertatis annis).
Justin also describes this Pausanias, at the time of Philip’s murder, as a “youth” (adulescens). This hardly suits your somewhat dogmatic view (expressed elsewhere) that this Pausanias was, at this time, a somatophylax or one of the seven. Diodorus is preferable here: Pausanias was indeed a “bodyguard” (somatophylax / doryphoroi in Plutarch) and a member of the agema of the hypaspists amongst whom he’d been “advanced”.
And (amusingly) it has been your position that the Pages might be described as Somatophylakes. But there is no need for Pausanias to have been a Somatophylax at the time of the original incident – only at the time of the assassination, which is Diodorus’s focus. Justin appears to be correct in suggesting that the original incident had occurred something like eight years before Philip’s assassination. The Latin terminology overlaps just as puberty and adolescence overlap in English.
Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:Aelian, Varia Historia 14.48 has Philip execute a Page called Archedamus, because he took his armour off, when he had been told to keep it on. The context (plundering) suggests the aftermath of a battle.
Aelian Varia Historia 14.48:
Philip taking the Sons of the noblest in Macedonia, made them wait upon his person, not in contempt of them, or to affront them, but that he might make them ready and expedite for action. To such of them as were addicted to Luxury, or performed his Commands remissly, he is said to have been very severe. Thus he did beat Aphthonetus, because upon a march, being thirsty, he left his rank, and went out of the way to an Inne. Archedamus he put to death for putting off his Arms, when he had commanded him to keep them on.
I don’t see the context.
That is because you have truncated the quote, which continues, “Archedamus was unable to resist thoughts of gain…” The Loeb editor has commented, “Perhaps Archedamus had been tempted to plunder the enemy camp before the danger of a counterattack was past.”

I note that the arguments above against Marcus are arguments from silence. That no arguments from fact can be found would tend to suggest that Marcus is right. There is considerable overlap between the trierarchs and the hetairoi or “Friends” of the king. The latter fought with the king in battles (e.g. Arrian 1.6.5), unless they commanded their own units.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:
Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:It is stated explicitly at Curtius 8.6.4.
It is conjectured that the boys entered the “school” between the ages of thirteen to fifteen with the common guess being fourteen. Curtius here explains the "institution' of the pages in this discourse and lists examples of the duties pages, over their term, will perform. Arrian (4.13.1) does something similar. Nothing in either excursus explains at what age a page performed any or all of the duties so described.
The logical inference being that all the Pages shared in all the duties throughout their period as Pages.
I don't see the logic. At all. The pages may have performed certain duties right from the beginning - anyone can stand outside the king's bedroom while he sleeps - but they most certainly would have had to be trained before performing others. You don't put a high school junior who has never played basketball directly on to the school team. And that's only sports. With the pages it was war! Putting a 13-14 year old with NO training and NO military experience by the side of the king, ostensibly to protect him in battle? There's no way I can view that as logical. Instead of combatting the enemy Philip (and Alexander) would have been babysitters. And they would have endangered their own lives.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Rereading fire from heaven

Post by marcus »

Paralus wrote:
marcus wrote:I agree that Bagoas is unlikely to have led European troops - but see my earlier comment that I would happily accept that he had been inducted into the agema, which would not have meant leading troops, but would have meant riding alongside Alexander in battle - as Darius' own brother did after 330. Therefore he would presumably have been included in the general "Persians" who entered Macedonian units.
agesilaos wrote:Marcus, I just don't think that Bagoas would not have been mentioned by name he was Alexander's boy and just if not more important than the dead King's brother.
I'd go with Agesilaos here. Arrian (7.6.4-5) lists those who'd been installed into the agema "Cophen, son of Artabazus, Hydarnes and Artiboles, sons of Mazaeus, Sisines and Phradasmenes, sons of Phrataphernes, viceroy of Parthia and Hyrcania, Histanes, son of Oxyartes and brother of Alexander's wife, Roxane, as well as Autobares and his brother Mithrobaeus". While nothing suggests that this list is complete, were Alexander's "favourite" a member I'd expect it to be noted. Elswhere (the revolt in Bactria / Soghdia) we have Artabazus named as a commader with Craterus' column. On balance, it say Bagoas was niether a member of the agema nor did he command any troops worthy of note.
Although Arrian never mentions Bagoas at all, anyway, unless Alexander's favourite is indeed the trierarch of the Indus fleet (which Heckel believes not to be the case, but at the moment that's by the by) and that mention is in Indica, rather than Anabasis. Also, look at the parentage of those Arrian does mention - sons of Artabazus, Mazaeus, Phrataphernes, Oxyartes ... So having not mentioned Bagoas in any other context, there's no reason why he should make a point of mentioning him here. As it is, Bagoas only gets a couple of mentions in Curtius, and one in Plutarch (if I recall correctly) - he hardly figures in the histories as a character worthy of much note.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply