Hephaestion and the "chiliarchy"

[Taphoi]

Diodorus 18.48.5 answers the question of when Hephaistion became Chiliarch:

Antipater also made his own son Cassander Chiliarch and second in authority. The position and rank of Chiliarch had first been brought to fame and honour by the Persian kings, and afterwards under Alexander it gained great power and glory at the time when he became an admirer of this and all other Persian customs.

Diodorus 17.77.4 states that it was in Hyrcania that Alexander began to imitate the Persian luxury and the extravagant display of the kings of Asia.

It was also in Hyrcania that Nabarzanes, the previous Chiliarch, surrendered to Alexander and was sent into retirement, so that was when the post became vacant.

To my knowledge, there is nothing anywhere else in the sources to contradict this, just as there is nothing to contradict Diodorus when he writes that Hephaistion was commander of the seven bodyguards at Gaugamela. As we have observed before, schemes designed to deny this involve Hephaistion being an infantry officer, but fighting with the cavalry. It is always safer to believe the sources, when no other source contradicts them.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Alexias]

I'd be terribly interested in reading the argument for his elevation at Susa. I might have thought he'd already be somatophylax prior to being ordained primus inter pares of the empire - with the notable exception of the conqueror himself of course.

I might have remembered this incorrectly - hope you can read this.

Untitled-1.jpg (208.52 KiB) Viewed 7512 times

4a.jpg (229.62 KiB) Viewed 7512 times

The words are: heothen eiselthon eis ten skenen (ἕωθεν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν) or "at dawn entered into the tent". The tent being, of course, that of Alexander. Perhaps, aside from the text, there is something else leading Reames to her view?

Thanks for that. I believe her view is subjective, and a small amount of pandering to her audience.

(Okay, get your minds out of the gutter. Maybe Alexander just needed his best friend's company the night before the Big Battle. I doubt he could sleep much.)

She appears to believe his embarrassment is disproportionate to the incident and needs an alternative explanation ie they had spent the night together and Hephaestion was embarrassed to have everyone know it. I don't think his embarrassment needs any further explanation - this was the biggest occasion on which he had a justifiable reason to attend the top level final conference before the battle and he'd just made a complete idiot of himself in front of the big guns of the army by not knowing what time of day it was, and had brought bad luck on Alexander. What young man wouldn't be actuely embarrassed? Having him leave Alexander's tent before the top generals arrive also reduces him to the status of a private friend of Alexander, a bed mate, who was too insignificant even to be an observer at the conference - unlikely I think.

Her implication is that they had been sleeping together; but I would not set any store by a story from a letter quoted by a satirist, cod letters were a common literary form in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, one could stretch the form back to Isokrates and the form - bad omen into good - is a common trope. The promotion of Hephaistion is never mentioned and so may have occured under Philip, Ptolemy son of Seleukos, whose position as Royal bodyguard he is meant to have filled was probably only an officer of the foot agema and not one of the Seven; Diodoros also calls him the leader of the somatophylakes at Gaugamela, Susa seems too late.

Even if the letter is not genuine, it has been used by the person I was arguing with as an example of Eumenes' hostility to Hephaestion by spreading damaging information about him to Antipater. It is more likely that Hephaestion wasn't the subject of the letter, but how Alexander's luck had held out during the battle of Issus despite the inauspicious start to the day.

[Paralus]

Diodorus 18.48.5 answers the question of when Hephaistion became Chiliarch:

Antipater also made his own son Cassander Chiliarch and second in authority. The position and rank of Chiliarch had first been brought to fame and honour by the Persian kings, and afterwards under Alexander it gained great power and glory at the time when he became an admirer of this and all other Persian customs.

Diodorus 17.77.4 states that it was in Hyrcania that Alexander began to imitate the Persian luxury and the extravagant display of the kings of Asia.

It was also in Hyrcania that Nabarzanes, the previous Chiliarch, surrendered to Alexander and was sent into retirement, so that was when the post became vacant.

To my knowledge, there is nothing anywhere else in the sources to contradict this...

Which does not mean that Hephaestion was made chiliarch on Nabarzanes' surrender. Nabarzanes was not Alexander's chiliarch.

The Macedonian position of chiliarch entailed command of the cavalry. As the most prestigious position in the army this would make such a person second in rank to the king. This cannot have happened at the time of Nabarzanes' surrender. At this time Philotas was still commander of the Companion cavalry. Nor can Hephaestion have been so promoted on Philotas' death for Alexander divided the cavalry command between two hippachs, Hephaestion and Clietus. Far more likely is that this ocurred during the reorganisation of the cavalry into hipparchies (eight including the agema) along with the intended retirement of Clietus to satrapal duty (and then his murder). The effect of this would see Alexander's favourite demoted to a hipparch amongst hipparchs. Hephaestion's promotion to chiliarch at this time will have seen him elevated to first amongst such.

... just as there is nothing to contradict Diodorus when he writes that Hephaistion was commander of the seven bodyguards at Gaugamela. As we have observed before, schemes designed to deny this involve Hephaistion being an infantry officer, but fighting with the cavalry.

"We" have not; you have.

Diodorus only writes that Hephaestion was wounded commanding the somatophylakes. Nothing supposes that the term is used technically to describe the seven just as its use does not at 17.65.1 or 92.3. As your translator notes: "The small group of bodyguards proper had no commander". Arrian demonstrably uses somotaphylakes to describe the agema of the hypaspists and it is just as likely that Diodorus has found this in his sources as not.

The statement, without argument (and pejorative in tone), that "schemes designed to deny this involve Hephaistion being an infantry officer, but fighting with the cavalry" is difficult to sustain.

[Taphoi]

The Macedonian position of chiliarch entailed command of the cavalry.

And yet Perdiccas, when he became Chiliarch after Alexander's death, gave up command of the Companion Cavalry in favour of Seleucus.

It was agreed between the infantry, who had already chosen a king, and the cavalry... that Perdiccas was to command the Chiliarchy which Hephaistion had originally held, which amounted to entrusting him with the care of the whole empire.

[Perdiccas] placed Seleucus in command of the cavalry of the Companions, a most distinguished office; for Hephaestion commanded them first, Perdiccas after him, and third the above-named Seleucus.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

[Perdiccas] placed Seleucus in command of the cavalry of the Companions, a most distinguished office; for Hephaestion commanded them first, Perdiccas after him, and third the above-named Seleucus.

And what was this command? You do not elucidate for it does not suit. The only clear description follows.

Arrian Anab.7.14.10:
Alexander made no one else chiliarch of the Companion cavalry in Hephaestion's place so that Hephaestion's name would not disappear from that unit.(taxis)

And, as "we" all know, "It is always safer to believe the sources, when no other source contradicts them".

Thus Hephaestion's chiliarchy was the cavalry command. So, when Perdiccas was promoted to Hephaestion's command (the chiliarchy or command of the cavalry), Eumenes was promoted to hipparch:

Plut.Eum.1.2:
...and [Eumenes] received the command in the cavalry which Perdiccas had held, when Perdiccas, after Hephaestion's death, was advanced to that officer's position.

One should not ignore the sources - especially when they agree.

And yet Perdiccas, when he became Chiliarch after Alexander's death, gave up command of the Companion Cavalry in favour of Seleucus.

And yet Diodorus, in whom you set so much store, says that Perdiccas was ἐπιμελητὴν δὲ τῆς βασιλείας (regent / guardian of the kings). Arrian (Succ.F1.38) names Cassander χιλίαρχος της ἵππου (chiliarch of the cavalry). Your statement betrays a lack of understanding of the three stages which constituted the "Babylonian settlement". I suggest you pay the sources a closer attention.

[Taphoi]

[Perdiccas] placed Seleucus in command of the cavalry of the Companions, a most distinguished office; for Hephaestion commanded them first, Perdiccas after him, and third the above-named Seleucus.

And what was this command? You do not elucidate for it does not suit. The only clear description follows.

Arrian Anab.7.14.10:
Alexander made no one else chiliarch of the Companion cavalry in Hephaestion's place so that Hephaestion's name would not disappear from that unit.(taxis)

Hammond explains the matter in some detail and concludes that Arrian was mistaken in conflating Hephaistion’s role as Chiliarch with his command of the top regiment (hipparchy) of the Companion cavalry (and Jeanne Reames agreed with him in her treatise on Hephaistion):

Hammond, Sources for Alexander the Great, pp 296-7

Hammond_on_Chiliarchy.jpg (253.81 KiB) Viewed 7417 times

James Romm in the Landmark Arrian has also recently conceded in respect of this passage that: “It seems possible that Arrian has confused this newly created Chiliarchy with a separate office, command over the Companion cavalry…”

I would only add that there seems to be a rough equation between command of the senior hipparchy of the Companion cavalry and the overall command of the Companion cavalry and it looks as though Alexander appointed Perdiccas to command the senior hipparchy and that it was the office of Chiliarch that Alexander himself did not fill.

Thus Hephaestion's chiliarchy was the cavalry command. So, when Perdiccas was promoted to Hephaestion's command (the chiliarchy or command of the cavalry), Eumenes was promoted to hipparch:

Plut.Eum.1.2:
...and [Eumenes] received the command in the cavalry which Perdiccas had held, when Perdiccas, after Hephaestion's death, was advanced to that officer's position.

Perdiccas was advanced by Alexander into the position of commander of the entire Companion cavalry. That is how he was in a position to give up that command to Seleucus in favour of the rank of Chiliarch in the first division of the satrapies. Arrian, Anab. 7.14.10 states (as you have quoted) that nobody was appointed Chiliarch by Alexander after Hephaistion’s death. So Arrian implicitly validates the version in Diodorus, which shows that Arrian is indeed simply making a mistake, when he connects the position of Chiliarch with the command of the Companion cavalry (or of its senior regiment). Hephaistion happened to hold both offices at his death, but they were awarded him separately and were distinct from one another.

And yet Perdiccas, when he became Chiliarch after Alexander's death, gave up command of the Companion Cavalry in favour of Seleucus.

And yet Diodorus, in whom you set so much store, says that Perdiccas was ἐπιμελητὴν δὲ τῆς βασιλείας (regent / guardian of the kings). Arrian (Succ.F1.38) names Cassander χιλίαρχος της ἵππου (chiliarch of the cavalry).

Your logic appears to proceed from the premise that nobody can hold two offices simultaneously, which is not the case. There is no reason at all why Perdiccas should not have been both Guardian of the Kings and Chiliarch, just as Hephaistion was both Commander of the Companion Cavalry and Chiliarch.
The Cassander mention is simply a second instance of exactly the same misunderstanding by Arrian.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

First, it is quite wrong to take a general statement deriving from one source and elucidate it with a vague chronological one from another; the Vulgate sources do put Alexander's adoption of the diadem, kandys etc around his stay in variously Parthia (Plutarch and probably Metz) and Hyrcania (Diodorus and Curtius) all follow hard on the visit of Thalestris and may owe as much to compositional as chronological concerns marking as it does the start of his decline. But is this what Diodoros' source in book 18, possibly Hieronymos, means by 'at the time when he became an admirer of this and all other Persian customs...'? This could apply to the situation at Opis where Persian Guard units are first raised, and Alexander was planning the Mass marriages at Susa; the relative brevity of the post may explain how it could be left vacant without throwing the administration off balance (assuming the post was more than ceremonial).

Again, Arrian is working from more than one source too; those in the Anabasis point to Nabarzenes' chiliarchy (III 21 i) and Hephaistion's including a cavalry command, those for Ta Meta Alexandrou confirm this for Kassander. For these references to stem from an error from Arrian himself seems unlikely. Hammond's idea of a coexistant Royal Hipparchy of Hephaistion and an agema strains credulity, which one wonders would be 'nullos secundi'.

Of course one man may hold two offices but some are mutually exclusive especially in the atmosphere in Babylon in 323. Perdikkas began as a marshal with the advantage of having recieved Alexander's ring; his initial bid was to become regent for Roxane's unborn child but the infantry and opposition among his peers scuppered this. As the leader of the cavalry faction he became de facto chiliarch but in negotiations acquired the rank of epimeletes with Meleager upon whose fall he becomes sole epimeletes and gives Seleukos the Chiliarchy, presumably as a trusted supporter.

Despite the frequent notices of the Chiliarch as the second in the Empire the post really seems to be very much what the holder made of it; it does not imply any de iure chain of command, under the Achaemenids the King's brothers and sons would out rank the non-Achemenid Chiliarch, it is pure speculation that Alexander would have left the man he could notentrust with a combat command to run the East while he went West and it is clear that Antipater did not consider the post as a natural pre-cursor to running things as he passed his son over for Polyperchon. The power lay in controlling access to the King but this function seems not to have caried over into Macedonian usage, and by the time of the diadochoi would have been something of a dead letter, power no longer residing with the King.

[Paralus]

Arrian, Anab. 7.14.10 states (as you have quoted) that nobody was appointed Chiliarch by Alexander after Hephaistion’s death.

Hammond explains the matter in some detail and concludes that Arrian was mistaken in conflating Hephaistion’s role as Chiliarch with his command of the top regiment (hipparchy) of the Companion cavalry (and Jeanne Reames agreed with him in her treatise on Hephaistion):

Pace Hammond, Reames and Romm I do not think Arrian has conflated matters here. Hephaestion's position of chiliarch is also the command of the companion cavalry. If conflation is an issue it is far more likely in Photius' tightly contracted summary of Arrian's Successors and Dexippus.

That Arrian reports Alexander awarding no one the chiliarchy (cavalry command) is likely due to airbrushing of Perdiccas' appointment by Ptolemy. Plutarch and Appian both record that he held such (Eum.1.2 and Syr. 57). Perdiccas is clearly the most important figure left at court and, as such, is given the responsibility of Hephaestion's corpse. In the same fashion Perdiccas' possession of the signet ring is not recorded by Arrian.

That he was "second in command" (or position) at Alexander's death is shown in the initial stage of the Babylonian settlement where Perdiccas arranges the dead conqueror's paraphernalia - finally adding the signet ring - and begins to stage proceedings. This "second in command" aspect of the chiliarchy is clearly communicated by Diododorus (18.48.4-5)

Antipater, who was already at the point of death, appointed as guardian of the kings (ἐπιμελητὴν τῶν βασιλέων) and supreme commander, Polyperchon [...] Antipater also made his own son Cassander chiliarch and second in authority (χιλίαρχον καὶ δευτερεύοντα κατὰ τὴν ἐξουσίαν).

Who then goes on to explain (as you've quoted) the adoption of the office by Alexander; an office occupied by Hephaestion, Perdiccas and Seleucus before him as both Plutarch and Appian relate. Therefore...

The Cassander mention is simply a second instance of exactly the same misunderstanding by Arrian.

...is to conjecture a misunderstanding too many.

Your logic appears to proceed from the premise that nobody can hold two offices simultaneously, which is not the case. There is no reason at all why Perdiccas should not have been both Guardian of the Kings and Chiliarch

No it does not. The somatophylakes clearly held other commands - ad hoc or otherwise. My statement that Perdiccas is referred to as ἐπιμελητὴν δὲ τῆς βασιλείας reflects his position in the final stage of the Babylonian Settlement when he distributes the satrapies. He was not chiliarch at this time and he is never referred to as such in any source from that time until his death. Seleucus and Cassander are.

The chiliarch was the "second in charge" to the king exactly as was Hephaestion to Alexander. After Alexander's death the chiliarch was second in command to the "regent / guardian" of the king(s) (prostates, epimeletes or epitropos ["tutor" in Curtius and Justin]) who assumed the prime authority of the kingdom in the name of the king(s) . A "second" rank - the chiliarch - did not disburse satrapal appointments or act for and on behalf of the king(s) who could not do so in his (their) own right. And despite the view of A W Collins (The Office of Chiliarch under Alexander and the Successors), there is no compelling evidence of two positions of chiliarch under Alexander (one cavalry and one court). Like the Great King, Alexander ruled; there was no "prime ministerial" chiliarch with his hands on the levers of state. There was, though, a second in command: the chiliarch who commanded the entire Companion cavalry and was the second most important military officer. Pace Hammond (Some Macedonian Offices) who argues - in an ingenious feat of literary engineering (much in the vein of his multiplicity of foot guards) - for a veritable plethora of constituional offices in the Macedonian "constitutional monarchy" (on which, see Anson below) - the gloss "in charge of the whole kingdom" in Photius' compression of Arrian can only refer to the (prostates, epimeletes or epitropos.

Thus when Alexander dies Perdiccas (the "second" in the empire - chiliarch) contrives to have himself promoted to first in the kingdom. He cannot possibly be proclaimed an Argead king but he can most certainly be made prostates, epimeletes or epitropos of Alexander's child yet to be born (should it be male). An Orontid dynasty was in the offing if he succeeded. Unfortunately it all went awry in a three stage process originally elucidated by Errington (From Babylon to Triparadeisos and furthered by Anson The Prostasia of Craterus, Classical Philology, Vol. 87, No. 1; Bosworth "The Babylonian Settlement" in The Legacy of Alexander and, more recently, Meeus The power Struggle of the Diadochoi in Babylon 323 BC Anc Soc 38, 2008 and Some Institutional Problems Concerning the Succession to Alexander the Great: Prosatsia and Chiliarchy, Historia 58/3, 2009). These stages in summary:

Argument between the corporus custodes, principes amicorum and the duces copiarum breaks out as the leading contestants press their claims. The nobles settled on a joint regency of Perdiccas and Leonatus (Justin adds both Antipater and Craterus) with Craterus and Antipater retaining joint control over Europe which the infantry then rejects and stasis ensues. The cavalry departs and Perdiccas, surviving an assassination attempt, begins negotians with the phalanx. End stage one.

Stage two sees the eventual compromise agreed to by the nobles as civil war portends. Here the phalanx is mollified by Perdiccas and the nobles accepting Arrhidaeus as king (whilst awaiting Roxanne's child) and Meleagher, Perdiccass and Craterus are appointed to what amounts to a joint regency similar to the first stage). Craterus' appeal to the phalanx would go a ways to explaining his inclusion. As well, Perdiccas retains the chiliarchy (command of the the cavalry) and Meleager (tertius dux in Curtius) that of the infantry (and thus a lesser command). The construct is clearly to limit the power of Perdiccas. Just as clearly Perdiccas (and the other nobles) see this as a temporary means to an end.

Having "lulled" Meleagher and organised a lustration of the army, Perdiccas has delivered to him the agitators who are eliminated followed by Meleager. Perdiccass is now the only regent in Bablyon.

Stage three sees the nobles once more meeting where Perdiccas, now sole regent in Babylon, has this confirmed. He is then the regent for the king(s) (cum rege essecopiisque praesse, ἐπιμελητὴν δὲ τῆς βασιλείας). It is in this position he has the distribution of the satrapies made. Also Craterus who, at Succ.3 is prostates, is now demoted to the administration of Europe along with Antipater (Succ.3) thus returning to his original position (stage one). Seleucus is now made chiliarch (ἔταξεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἱππαρχίαν τῶν ἑταίρων, Diod.18.3.4; summnus castrorum tribunatus, Justin 13.4.17) and, if Justin is correct (he's the only source to report it), Cassander is commander of the hypaspists.

Collins' view of a "court chiliarchy" - even ceremonial and in name only - has little to support it. The somatophylakes controlled access to the king as well as guarding him (as did the pages). "Ushers" introduced and chamberlains are also attested. The Macedonian chiliarchy entailed command over the entire Comapanion cavalry and the status as the "second" man militarily to the king.

[Taphoi]

First, it is quite wrong to take a general statement deriving from one source and elucidate it with a vague chronological one from another; the Vulgate sources do put Alexander's adoption of the diadem, kandys etc around his stay in variously Parthia (Plutarch and probably Metz) and Hyrcania (Diodorus and Curtius) all follow hard on the visit of Thalestris and may owe as much to compositional as chronological concerns marking as it does the start of his decline. But is this what Diodoros' source in book 18, possibly Hieronymos, means by 'at the time when he became an admirer of this and all other Persian customs...'? This could apply to the situation at Opis where Persian Guard units are first raised, and Alexander was planning the Mass marriages at Susa; the relative brevity of the post may explain how it could be left vacant without throwing the administration off balance (assuming the post was more than ceremonial).

Foreign troops were inducted into the army long before Opis. There were mass marriages of Alexander’s men at Roxane’s wedding too. Diodorus evidently thought it obvious when it was that Alexander became an admirer of Persian customs. In Diodorus’ own account it is Hyrcania. It is hard not to see the adoption of Persian dress, the acquisition of Darius’ harem, the installation of Persian ushers etc, etc, as constituting becoming an admirer of Persian customs. As you have pointed out, there is no disagreement in the sources that this all happened in Hyrcania/Parthia (the two regions border on one another). This was the second half of 330BC (Hammond also agrees this point in the extract that I have reproduced above).

Again, Arrian is working from more than one source too; those in the Anabasis point to Nabarzenes' chiliarchy (III 21 i) and Hephaistion's including a cavalry command, those for Ta Meta Alexandrou confirm this for Kassander. For these references to stem from an error from Arrian himself seems unlikely. Hammond's idea of a coexistant Royal Hipparchy of Hephaistion and an agema strains credulity, which one wonders would be 'nullos secundi'.

Well you are even disagreeing with one of the most stalwart defenders of Arrian’s accuracy: namely PA Brunt, who produced the Loeb translation of Arrian. Even he suggests that Arrian was making a mistake at 7.14.10. He also agrees with me that the command of the top Hipparchy also constituted command of the entire Companion Cavalry (how could it not, for the top Hipparch was necessarily the most senior officer in the Companion Cavalry?) Below is his Appendix XXIV.4, where H is Hephaistion, A is Arrian…:

PA Brunt on Hephaistion's status as Chiliarch

BruntOnChiliarchy.jpg (117.33 KiB) Viewed 7303 times

Of course one man may hold two offices but some are mutually exclusive especially in the atmosphere in Babylon in 323. Perdikkas began as a marshal with the advantage of having recieved Alexander's ring; his initial bid was to become regent for Roxane's unborn child but the infantry and opposition among his peers scuppered this. As the leader of the cavalry faction he became de facto chiliarch but in negotiations acquired the rank of epimeletes with Meleager upon whose fall he becomes sole epimeletes and gives Seleukos the Chiliarchy, presumably as a trusted supporter.

Arrian wrote that Perdiccas was appointed Chiliarch as part of the resolution of the dispute between the Cavalry and the Infantry a week after Alexander’s death. He acquired custody of the kings at the same time.

Despite the frequent notices of the Chiliarch as the second in the Empire the post really seems to be very much what the holder made of it; it does not imply any de iure chain of command, under the Achaemenids the King's brothers and sons would out rank the non-Achemenid Chiliarch, it is pure speculation that Alexander would have left the man he could notentrust with a combat command to run the East while he went West and it is clear that Antipater did not consider the post as a natural pre-cursor to running things as he passed his son over for Polyperchon. The power lay in controlling access to the King but this function seems not to have caried over into Macedonian usage, and by the time of the diadochoi would have been something of a dead letter, power no longer residing with the King.

Arrian wrote that giving Perdiccas the Chiliarchy of Hephaistion “amounted to entrusting him with the care of the whole empire”. Diodorus (presumably following Hieronymus) says that “Antipater also made his own son Cassander chiliarch and second in authority. The position and rank of chiliarch had first been brought to fame and honour by the Persian kings, and afterwards under Alexander it gained great power and glory at the time when he became an admirer of this and all other Persian customs. For this reason Antipater, following the same course, appointed his son Cassander, since he was young, to the office of chiliarch.” So these two (who you usually laud as the best sources) are in complete and explicit agreement that the Chiliarch was second in authority after the King. No other source says otherwise. Yet you are sure that they are wrong. On what authority?

Best wishes,
Andrew

[Paralus]

Arrian wrote that Perdiccas was appointed Chiliarch as part of the resolution of the dispute between the Cavalry and the Infantry a week after Alexander’s death. He acquired custody of the kings at the same time [...] Arrian wrote that giving Perdiccas the Chiliarchy of Hephaistion “amounted to entrusting him with the care of the whole empire”.

One could almost admire such single-mindedness if only for the accompanying selectivity.

We cannot claim to know exactly what "Arrian wrote" in his Successors; we can claim only to know what Photius' reduced to dot point summary. Photius has summarised five books into something just over 600 words (in the English translation). One can only imagine what this will have done to books 1-5 of the Anabasis.

The Vulgate - especially Curtius and,to a lesser extent, Justin - is a far fuller presentation of events in Babylon. By comparison, Photius reduction of Arrian is akin to summarising the process of a US presidential election from primaries through conventions to election into some two paragraphs.

In the compromise with the infantry Meleagher, Perdiccas and Craterus are appointed to a joint "regency". Here Perdiccas is confirmed as chiliarch and chief military officer, Meleagher his "lieutenant" (in command of the infantry) and Craterus as prostates of the kingdom of Arhhidaeus. Craterus was in Cilicia and was never intended to take up his role: Perdiccas would see to that after eliminating Meleagher.

The position of chiliarch is not one that controls the entire kingdom (just as Hephaestion clearly did not under Alexander); the prostates, epimeletes or epitropos (or tutor in Curtius/Justin) exercises that control and the chiliarch is subordinate as the source material clearly demonstrates.

[chris_taylor]

We cannot claim to know exactly what "Arrian wrote" in his Successors; we can claim only to know what Photius' reduced to dot point summary. Photius has summarised five books into something just over 600 words (in the English translation). One can only imagine what this will have done to books 1-5 of the Anabasis.

It's irrelevant what Photius' summary has done to 5 books. What matters is what it did to the paragraphs in question.

Here are Photius words, copy & paste from the Livius site:

... that Perdiccas should be chiliarch of the troops which had been under the command of Hephaestion, which amounted to entrusting him with the care of the whole empire; and that Meleager should be his lieutenant.

That's a strong and unequivocal statement on an important matter. Neither Arrian nor Photius were careless with their material.

One could almost admire such single-mindedness if only for the accompanying selectivity.

In the days of the old Usenet, when specialist discussion groups operated at very high level, posts containing saracastic personal attacks would have been returned to sender for editing.

Chris.

[marcus]

In the days of the old Usenet, when specialist discussion groups operated at very high level, posts containing saracastic personal attacks would have been returned to sender for editing.

Don't even go there, Chris!

[amyntoros]

It's irrelevant what Photius' summary has done to 5 books. What matters is what it did to the paragraphs in question.

Here are Photius words, copy & paste from the Livius site:

... that Perdiccas should be chiliarch of the troops which had been under the command of Hephaestion, which amounted to entrusting him with the care of the whole empire; and that Meleager should be his lieutenant.

That's a strong and unequivocal statement on an important matter. Neither Arrian nor Photius were careless with their material.

I've been following this debate although a long, drawn-out sickness has prevented me from contributing, however I feel the need to ask a question here, even though I believe it might have already been addressed earlier. (Hopefully my brain isn't completely addled with fever.) If Perdiccas being "chiliarch of the troops which had been under the command of Hephaistion" means the care of the whole empire was entrusted to him, wouldn't it follow that when Perdiccas gave command of the cavalry to Seleucus then Seleucus now had the care of the whole empire?

Diodorus 18.3.4 He placed Seleucus in command of the cavalry of the Companions, a most distinguished office ; for Hephaestion commanded them first, Perdiccas after him, and third the above-named Seleucus.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

We cannot claim to know exactly what "Arrian wrote" in his Successors; we can claim only to know what Photius' reduced to dot point summary. Photius has summarised five books into something just over 600 words (in the English translation). One can only imagine what this will have done to books 1-5 of the Anabasis.

It's irrelevant what Photius' summary has done to 5 books. What matters is what it did to the paragraphs in question.

Of course it's relevant. How can reducing 5 books to some 600 or more words not be? The work ran to ten books; Anabasis 7. You can see Photius' summary of theAnabasis here.

Here are Photius words, copy & paste from the Livius site:

... that Perdiccas should be chiliarch of the troops which had been under the command of Hephaestion, which amounted to entrusting him with the care of the whole empire; and that Meleager should be his lieutenant.

That's a strong and unequivocal statement on an important matter. Neither Arrian nor Photius were careless with their material.

And it describes two offices not the one. Amyntoros has pointed out, if the position of chiliarch of the troops that Hephaestion commanded meant care or control of the whole empire then Seleucus, too, controlled the whole empire as did Cassander after him. Photius' severely abridged summary is the only source to claim this hence:

One could almost admire such single-mindedness if only for the accompanying selectivity.

Means exactly what it says: single mindedness based upon a single notation though you are free to see in it whichever way you wish. Once again, the "Vulgate" is by far the fullest in describing events in Babylon and those lucid descriptions are far better than Photius' shorthand of Arrian's Successors.

Clearly one who was "chiliarch of the troops which had been under the command of Hephaestion" did not control or have the care of the whole empire. Nor did such a position have the executive authority to act in the stead of the king(s).

[chris_taylor]

It's irrelevant what Photius' summary has done to 5 books. What matters is what it did to the paragraphs in question.

Of course it's relevant. How can reducing 5 books to some 600 or more words not be?

If you're prepared to discard Justin, Diodorus and large sections of Plutarch because they are abridged versions of source materials (or the only authors to state something), then it is relevant. Otherwise it isn't.

I suggest we agree to disagree on this one.

Chris