...And a reciprocal gift for Paralus:
‘Deck the halls with boughs of holly....fa..la.la.lalaa.. lala....lala
Time to ex-pose Paralus’ folly... ..fa..la.la.lalaa .. lala....lala
Paralus wrote:
A Christmas gift for Xenophon:
He’s reading the posts,
He’s checking them twice
He’s gonna find out if they’re twaddle or nice
Paralus Claus is coming to town
A Christmas gift !! Hurrah ! Hope it’s as good as System 88’s gift to us all !!
And a meaty one seemingly ! Over 1700 words worth of post....and yet, and yet....total disappointment
Tear off the wrapping, and there’s just nothing of substance !
Mere sophistry and flawed attempts to attack my posts - a negative counter, made necessary because Paralus has nothing positive to support his beliefs. No attempt to build a case based on evidence, indeed 1700 words later and we are very little the wiser as to just what Paralus’ case is. Ah, well, at least it may serve as a demonstration of flawed arguments......in line with the principle of attacking the arguments, rather than the person making them.....
Paralus wrote:
My position is not that there were “ten chiliarchies” but that if Curtius is accurate, there were eight such. Further, if we conflate Arrian’s note of the above two hypaspist chiliarchs with Curtius’ eight, there are ten chiliarchs named by both. That is not the same as there being “ten chiliarchies” and to suggest I agreed so is incorrect. If Cutius is correct and if we conflate both sources, there are reasons for the replacement of chiliarchs as I’ve noted and which have been rejected by you on the grounds that Arrian does not name the dead chiliarchs.
Not true, Curtius speaks of eight chiliarchs being “the
first time...” the forces were so divided, not the only time chiliarchies were created....
Also, I speak of possibilities only. I don’t “reject” the idea of two dead chiliarchs, merely point out that we previously are told when officers of senior rank perish, hence two dead chiliarchs seems unlikely. Of course death may not be the only reason for a change of command – witness Simmias’ command of his brother Amyntas’ ‘Taxis’ when he is sent to Macedon to bring re-inforcements, but once again we are apparently told of such events, though how many we are not told of is an unknowable moot point.
You earlier, despite wordy postings, did not make clear your viewpoint, which
is a possibility – that the 10 chiliarchs named may relate to just Curtius’ 8 chiliarchies, albeit a slim one. But there is no evidence that there were ONLY eight chiliarchies, and definitely some that there were more. You accept that there are ten ( excluding Hephaistion) named chiliarchs, but insist on Curtius’ literal eight chiliarchies ? ( allowing for your caveat of "if Curtius is correct"). Presumably you postulate two changes of command that lead to Antiochus and Nearchus becoming chiliarchs? But obviously there were not 8 chiliarchies of Hypaspists in the first place, most probably just the Agema and 3 other chiliarchies? Your caveat implies Curtius is somehow wrong, though here without suggesting how, and for what reasons [though see below, when you supposedly answer the question]. Are you seriously suggesting that Curtius’ source could mistake “Commander of 1,000” for “Commander of 500” or perhaps some other sub-unit ?? (chiliarchy for pentekosiarchy – which is as unmistakeable in Greek as it is in English)
That this is not the only time when chilarchies are created is implicit in Curtius’ language: “..this being the
first time that the forces were divided into that number; “ i.e. not the only, but the first of perhaps many.
What is more the term ‘pentekosiarchy’ does not appear until [VII.26] and would thus be an ‘anachronism’ here by your earlier ( but mistaken) reasoning.
In fact it is likely that the word ‘pentekosiarchy’ probably replaced ‘lochos’ for a unit of 500 by analogy with ‘chiliarchy’ for 1,000, some time after the re-organisation of the army.
On your reading, these are the only two hypaspist chiliarchs named by Arrian in the entire work. That he does not record the death of others is not surprising given that he never bothers to name any others even in contexts where such could be noted. It is far more likely a function of his source noting these two officers in this one instance and not bothering to note others elsewhere (it is interesting to note that Philotas, the phalanx infantry chiliarch promoted to taxiarch according to yourself, manages such without Arrian – who “seems to have been conscientious about such things” – mentioning the fate of the taxiarch he replaced).
It is correct that these two are the only named Hypaspist chiliarchs, but although not called so, Seleucus is likely a chiliarch of Hypaspists also. Arrian does mention the deaths of senior officers frequently, e.g Admetus, or Seleucus the taxiarch etc.
Your interpretation of my ‘reading’ is a mis-representation of what I wrote – I merely mentioned that POSSIBLY Philotas the chiliarch was the same as Philotas the (possible)Taxiarch. In that case he would be the only one of the named eight whose further career we hear of, and if so that would be because he became a Unit Commander, instead of just being a typically anonymous sub-unit commander. That is an example of a fallacious argument – setting up a ‘straw man’, a caricature of what was actually said that is refutable, rather than what was really said. ( The point here being that it is Unit commanders who are sometimes mentioned but rarely sub-unit commanders, so we would not expect to hear of the doings of chiliarchs of the phalanx. Nor, after 'chiliarchies' are introduced, are we told of the death of any Hypaspist chiliarchs.)
Again, we cannot know the reason for our source including or excluding a particular anecdote - or where something is left out altogether, unless we have another source to compare with. Arrian does often give background information for minor characters, but it is impossible to determine those not mentioned, or why....( hence "
seems")...and in any event this just another 'red herring' from the question of whether 'chiliarchy' in Curtius V.2.3 refers purely to the Hypaspists or not.
Your case has, from the beginning, been rooted in Curtius’ notice of these chiliarchs of Sittakene. Indeed you have claimed that “there must have been chilarchies in the phalanx on the strength of Curtius' evidence” and this because Curtius names eight. You then add further by claiming the archers had chiliarchs (though none is ever named and they are only ever commanded by a single officer) and that the cavalry had a unit of 1,000 commanded by a similar chiliarch, Hephaestion. When confronted with the uncomfortable fact that “Curtius’ evidence” is only eight such officers you have alternately proposed that not all the Macedonian heavy infantry were so organised at this time or that the lot was so organised only there were “existing commanders” to fill these vacancies; that is those not noted (for whatever reason) by Curtius.
Yes, because as you have so singularly failed to explain, if the extra 4 or so chiliarchs ( beyond the corps of Hypaspists) were not appointed to posts within the phalanx it is very difficult to explain where they went without throwing up implausibilities, and as you mention, and I pointed out earlier, only two of the named eight have any known association with the Hypaspists. "Confronted with the uncomfortable fact" is neither a 'confrontation' nor uncomfortable - only if, as you do claim "there were eight and only eight". I have demonstrated that there were more, and that the term was not restricted to the Hypaspists ( it applied to archers and cavalry too, but even if we leave aside the latter, still clearly not just Hypaspists - it is throughout just the generic term for a command of 1,000 )
And since there were ‘chiliarchies’ of archers, they can hardly be commanded by anything other than chiliarchs. Tactically, the archers were usually split into two units – one for each wing, so that when these were 1,000 strong, they were likely made up of two ‘lochoi’, and when 2,000 strong, two chiliarchies, as we are told.That they have an overall commander above the un-named chiliarchs would parallel possible chiliarchies in the phalanx, where the Taxiarch is named but not any subordinate chiliarchs. To suggest chiliarchies were not here commanded by chiliarchs because we are not explicitly told so is hair-splitting in the extreme, and just not credible. Another form of fallacious argument. After all, the existence of chiliarchies of archers alone proves that the term was NOT restricted to units of Hypaspists. Nor is it Curtius’ evidence that the named eight were the ONLY chiliarchs, merely those first appointed.
Xenophon wrote:Chiliarchies are indeed created [Curtius V.3] "the first time the forces were divided into that number." ( note: forces, not Hypaspists ). Moreover 8 chiliarchs are appointed at this time, and perhaps others on other occasions […]Perhaps this occasion merits notice because of its ‘en masse’ nature, and subsequent appointments of a chiliarch here or there, especially to a sub-unit of a phalanx ‘taxis’, would not be so noted....
....is completely illogical. If 8 chiliarchs only are appointed on this occasion, that does not mean that Alexander could not have re-organised his whole phalanx into chiliarchies – there were existing commanders to accommodate into the new structure.
Difficult to know just which it is you are arguing for. The first is, as Agesilaos noted and with which I agree, “nonsense”. We have four hypaspist chiliarchs (on your count) and only two taxeis of the phalanx organised as such – the rest wait until some opportune later date and available 'men of valour'. Perhaps, then, four taxeis of the phalanx were so organised and only two hypaspist chiliarchies created (as only two are associated as you say). Neither makes sense: there is no reason to reorganise half the hypaspists and even less to reorganise two thirds of the phalanx taxeis (or visa-versa). On your second view, I have already pointed out that is was clearly “existing commanders” (officers of whichever level below taxiarch) who competed for the eight positions in Curtius’ passage. They are, then, no different to your un-named existing commanders.
How do you know that the Taxiarch did not command one 'chiliarchy', leaving just one chiliarch to command the second in each Taxis, for example ? There are several permutations possible.These difficulties only arise because you take Curtius too literally, indeed going further and limiting possible meanings ( "eight and only eight chilarchies." - something Curtius does NOT say.) This is clearly not the one and only occasion that ‘chiliarchs’ were appointed to command the new ‘chiliarchies’,1,000 strong, merely the first, as Curtius says. It is manifest that more than 8 chiliarchies existed. And even if it were not, that there are eight is way too many for just the Hypaspists in any event.
It is also clear that Alexander was trying something new, in order to tighten his personal control over the army. Traditionally the territorial/tribal units had been officered by their own aristocracy, and Alexander sought to change this to a system where the officers were appointed by ‘merit’ i.e. owed their appointment, and hence their personal loyalty, to him. ( following his throwing off the shackles of the stranglehold Parmenion’s family seems to have had on high command with Parmenion commanding up to half the army – including, apparently, many troops loyal to him personally, Philotas commanding Alexander’s mounted guard and Nicanor his foot guard. More junior appointments were undoubtedly occupied by Parmenion’s adherents, and various other factions)
Curtius V.2.3 was simply his first attempt to achieve this change, and evidently disguised by ostensibly making it a ‘contest’, though we may be reasonably sure that all the appointments were with Alexander’s approval. Having set this precedent, Alexander could then gradually change the composition of the Officer corps, as evidenced by Curtius V.2.3; Diodorus XVII.65 (quoted by you below) and touched upon by Arrian at III.16 with his ‘new’ army structure.
What then to make of the following?
Xenophon wrote:That ‘chiliarchs’ were appointed on other occasions cannot be doubted – Antiochus and Nearchus weren’t appointed at Susa/Sittakene for a start, nor in all probability the archers.
The only reason you “know this” and that “it cannot be doubted” is that Curtius does not name them amongst his eight ‘chiliarchs’. So then, was it a case of no “existing commanders to accommodate into the new structure” or did Alexander decide only to reorganise one half of his Guard unit? Best not be taking Curtius too literally here.
And I do not take him too literally – see above – unlike Paralus, who can’t decide if Curtius is entirely literally true, or if Curtius has made a fundamental mistake, and doesn’t refer to ‘chiliarchies’ at all, but some other rank....all very 'fuzzy'. Also an example of a false dichotomy.This is also an example of a ‘straw man’ argument again – setting up a caricature of what I actually meant, so that Paralus can refute his own artificial argument, by rhetorical question. ( which incidently, I don't follow. How can 8 chiliarchs apply to one half of the Hypaspists? Shome mishtake shurely ? Is this a reference to the fact that only 2 of the eight have known associations with Hypaspists?)
As I’ve noted, Curtius is the only source to record this “competition”. Diodorus records only that Alexander “wanted to advance some officers and to strengthen the forces by the number and the ability of the commanders. This he effected. He scrutinized closely the reports of good conduct and promoted many from a high military command to an even higher responsibility, so that by giving all the commanders greater prestige he bound them to himself by strong ties of affection” (17.65.2-3). Clearly, as I note above, existing officers competed here. Now, Diodorus (book 17) and Curtius are universally agreed to have shared a common source. Whilst it is not unlikely that the Sicilian has edited out Curtius’ list of “chiliarchs”, it is surprising that he fails to mention any such reorganisation. On your own statement, Diodorus never uses “chiliarch” until book 18. Are we to suppose it was a term of Hieronymus? Working from a common source, that is a concern.
These are but minor quibbles, and none of us can decide why a particular source mentions a particular matter, whilst others do not – witness the fact that Arrian all but passes over these events altogether.( see above) Perhaps Curtius drew on another source for this particular passage, we simply don’t know. However, what is apparent is that the process was intended to give Alexander more personal control of the Army, and in particular its officer corps.
Now, to answer your question “So then, Paralus, let us hear your explanation of who all these surplus ‘chiliarchs’ served with?” To do so it’s best to put that question into some context for it comes with overtures of “the Dark Side”…
Xenophon wrote:Scholarly attempts at ‘special pleading,’ such as Curtius “must have” meant pentekosiarchs/ commander of 500 should be dismissed as unlikely in the extreme, indeed as totally implausible […]rather than the over-complicated theorems of modern commentators […] Do you, for example, subscribe to the lame theory that Curtius ‘must have’ meant pentekosiarchs ? Or perhaps each ‘chiliarchy’ of Hypaspists has an “heir and a spare” ?
Now, all the above language is deliberate and used for effect. That effect is to ridicule and dismiss any such proposition even though it is not in play. This is exactly what Luisa Prandi does when diminishing the importance of Poxy LXXI. 4808. The poser of the question is absolutely certain of his ground and the object is to destroy the counter proposition – not on the evidence – but on rather more histrionic or emotive grounds.
Not at all. My point was neither ‘histrionic’ nor ‘emotive’, but based on evidence, or rather lack of it. There is not one iota of evidence for the proposition that Curtius ‘must be’ referring to pentekosiarchs or similar. It is, as I said, an example of the logical fallacy of ‘special pleading’ – the introduction of something new, which is not in the original, a false counter to some uncomfortable fact, or to try to alter the evidence to fit a pre-conceived view. The comparison with Prandi is simply ‘mud slinging’ – another form of poor argument.
That said, I must put myself within the camp of those whose views are “unlikely in the extreme”, “totally implausible”, “rather over-complicated theorems” and “lame” and who see Curtius as having muddled this notice. I do not see that ‘chiliarchs’ are what is actually being discussed. Indeed, I believe that such relatively senior commanders will have been selected by the king sans contest as Diodorus implies. Those below may compete for the next level. After all, in your view, the supposed chiliarch is an arrowhead away from a taxiarchy. Fancy that, a man from the ‘non-coms’, like Philotas, taking over a command the preserve of a noble (though, perhaps Alexander sought this?).
Paralus stated he would answer the question of where the surplus chiliarchs went - but does not ( though earlier he opined that there were "eight and eight only" chiliarchs in Curtius - "if he is correct"). Instead he now "
[does]not see that chiliarchs are what is actually being discussed", instead making the problem disappear, with a vague unsupported statement, and even then does not say what emendation he would make to Curtius 'chiliarchae', or give reasons !
In short, Paralus subscribes to a demonstrably false view, based on the assumption that the source ‘must be wrong’. To subscribe to such a modern ‘made up’ view, reliant on special pleading, and without any evidence at all to support it is illogical .This is the more so when there are alternate explanations, which do not require us to assume the source is necessarily wrong! [ Also, on what basis is Philotas a 'non-com' ? At Halicarnassus, like Hellanicus, he is a commander/officer, assuming it is the same person, which is very likely; Arrian I.21.5]
But of course we have “the manuals” and these cannot be ignored. Those who have done so have been brought up short in the past. The tactical manuals – all later Hellenistic productions – say that the Macedonian phalanx was divided into ‘chiliarchies’. This, then, is incontrovertible evidence – when taken with Curtius’ evidence – that Alexander introduced such at Sittakene. Before this reform the troops were organised in lochoi, in your view 512 strong. The “manuals” describe a lochos as a file of 16 and a lochagos as the file leader. Did Alexander have 16 strong lochoi at Gaugamela or did he reduce this command to 16 in Sittakene? Conflation of sources – many, many years apart – is a dangerous game.
Despite the sarcasm ( it is always suspicious when someone’s case reverts to sarcasm ), the manuals, or rather manual, for they all stem from a single source going back to (probably) Polybius, is our best source for the structure of Macedonian type armies, and it/they tell us flatly that they go back to Alexander ( and beyond), even to details such as which form of counter-march Alexander preferred.[The Laconian, for those wondering ! ] Despite the hundred years or so between Alexander and Polybius, there is remarkable consistency between the structure described in the manual and the sources for Alexander’s army. Some nomenclature had changed in the interim – hardly surprising given the generic nature of Greek military terminology, but the structure is clearly visible. In the manual the ‘taxis’ of Alexander’s day ( later called ‘meras’) is made up of 2 chiliarchies [1,024 men] each made up of 2 pentekosiarchies [512 men] – which were previously probably called ‘lochoi’ ( see e.g. Arrian IV.2.1; VI.27.1 and VII.24.4). It is the change to the name ‘pentekosiarcy’ which seems to have taken place near the end of Alexander’s reign that allowed the generic term ‘lochos’ lit: a band, or bunch, or company of men to become applied later to a file instead of the unit of 500. I feel sure Paralus is aware of this, hence his attempt to discredit the manual and its use of terminology is a smoke screen, or to use his own term, ‘sunburned clupeidae’/red herring. This is not the ‘dangerous game’ that Paralus would have us believe, for once again he is trying to throw doubt on evidence which is plain, and discredit it when there is no reason to do so, just because it does not accord with his unsupported, and illogical, beliefs. As for the 'time gap', at 100 years or so (Polybius) it is fairly close to Alexander. It is no more a 'dangerous game' than to compare Diodorus, Curtius, Plutarch and Arrian.
On to other matters. You seem confused (as I’ve noted nore than once) over Hephaestions’ Chiliarchy. Your most recent comment:
Xenophon wrote:I was really only referring to the title 'chiliarch' in the military sense of commander of 1,000/chiliarchy in being part of the catalogue of usages of the term. That is the context of the section at [VII.14.10] where it is apparent that the passage deals with succession to the command of Hephaistion's 'chiliarchy' qua Companion Cavalry command.
Whilst I realise you need Hephaestion’s command to be of 1,000 troops for your argument, it’s becoming passingly difficult to keep up with your altering positionts regarding this. You began with.......
Yet another flawed argument, based on false premises. I don’t need Hephaistion’s command to be 1,000 troops at all [yet another 'straw man'] – it suffices for the case I’ve put forward that there were more than four chiliarchies, hence it was not just the Hypaspists who were so organised, and there are undoubtedly more than four chiliarchs, and we find archers too organised this way. “Keep up with your altering positions” is another example of flawed and exaggerated argument, for my position alters only a little, based on close examination of the evidence .....
Xenophon wrote:[Digression: In Alexander's day the term 'chiliarchon' seems to have been used to describe the very influential person who commanded the King's Bodyguard. He first gave it to Hephaistion, described at Arrian VII.14.10 as "chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry." Perdiccas apparently succeeded to this title following Hephaistion's death.
With which I would largely agree and have enlarged upon. You then decided, as your need for demonstrable ‘chiliarchs’ in Alexander’s army necessitated, that this was not so:
More 'straw man' argument ! I have no need for Hephaistion to be a chiliarch necessarily - there are quite clearly more than is needed for the Hypaspists alone, whether or not Hephaistion is included.....and a 'sunburned clupeidae' to boot !
Xenophon wrote:...Except the reference I supplied at VII.14.10 where Hephaistion still commands his previous 'half' of the Companion cavalry i.e two Hipparchia of 500 or so, which adds up to a chiliarchy, hence he is referred to as 'Chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry'.
So, which is Hephaestion? The “very influential person who commanded the King's Bodyguard […] described at Arrian VII.14.10 as ‘chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry’” or the Hephaestion who only commands “his previous 'half' of the Companion cavalry i.e two Hipparchia of 500 or so, which adds up to a chiliarchy, hence he is referred to as 'Chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry'”?
Here we have another example of illogical argument - another false dichotomy. It is not an 'either or' situation.
When I wrote the former, it was a generalisation by way of a digression. There is little doubt that Hephaistion was “a very influential person”, nor, as the sole ‘chiliarch’ of Hetairoi that he was the senior officer thereof. As the thread progressed, and I researched further I began to question the assumption that he must also have commanded the Hetairoi, because nowhere does he do so, nor is he ever called such in our best sources [ only in Diodorus after Alexander’s death, by analogy with Perdiccas as ‘Chiliarch’, who really
was commander of the Hetairoi at that time.] The most we ever hear of is Hephaistion commanding ‘half’ the Hetairoi, on a temporary ad hoc basis. Most importantly, at Arrian VII.14.10, we are told that at the time of his death:
“
Alexander did not appoint any one else to be ‘chiliarch’[chiliarchon =commander of 1,000] of the Companion cavalry in the place of Hephaestion, so that the name of that general might not perish from the brigade [chiliarchy]; but that division/sub-unit[taxis] of cavalry was still called Hephaestion's ........”
Note that Hephaistion is NOT called commander of all the Hetairoi, just one sub-unit, a chiliarchy of 1,000 men. This ties in nicely with what we are told earlier, [III.27] when after Philotas’ execution, command of the Companions, then some 2,000 strong, is divided into two between Hephaistion and Cleitus, so that each commands a thousand. These new units do not at first have a name, hence are called generic ‘hipparchia duo’[two cavalry commands]. After Cleitus’ death, and with the expansion of the Companions, the new sub-units are also called ‘hipparchies’, each some 500 strong [i.e. two ‘Iles’/squadrons, each of two ‘lochoi’/troops]. Hephaistion could hardly be ‘demoted’ to Hipparch, hence his original double-sized hipparchy is now called a ‘chiliarchy’, and he ‘chiliarch’, quite rightly for a unit of 1,000 cavalry, and as the sole ‘chiliarch’ of Hetairoi, Hephaistion is its senior officer, but NOT in actual fact the commander of the whole Companions – a subtle distinction, but an important one. Alexander has ingeniously avoided having a single commander, as he intended, after Philotas, and Hephaistion does not “lose face” for not being given sole command of the Companions after the death of Cleitus.
However, all this is a digression – another ‘sunburned clupeidae’, which is here used to distract from the total lack of evidence for Paralus’ rather loose, and seemingly confused position [ is Curtius referring to 8 chiilarchons or not, and if not, what? And what evidence is Curtius' "error" based on ?]
.