A Hephaistion Quiz!

[Callisto]

Well, take gander at Heckel's Who Who. There's nary an Amyntor to be found, but countless Amyntas'.

If i am not mistaken this specific book contains biographies limited solely to the period of Alexander and doesnt cover before. I dont doubt at the time of Alexander, Amyntas was a widely spread name in Macedonia especially if we keep in mind some owners of the name had been previously Argead kings.

From the other hand i dont find in Heckel's book any Macedonian called Aerminas eventhough we know this was a Macedonian name at the times of Alexander I. Same with a Macedonian name sharing the same root with both Amyntas and Amyntor. There is no Amynandros either or at least googling inside his book didnt bring anything .

Searching about Amyntor i found out a reference by J. B. Bury in his Quarterly Review for July 1916 who is quoting the linguist Otto Hoffmann.

"Hoffmann speaks of the ending -- tor as especially characteristic of Macedonian names, noting Amyntor as a true Macedonian formation."

Geron is a Greek "name"? Doesn't it mean "old man"? Who was Amyntor son of Geron? Would that be something like Amyntor Jr.? Is this the Amyntor gerontos of Makedon from the Kolophon inscription? Then we are talking about the same person.

I would say Geron is a Homeric word. It had the political meaning initially of Elder or Leader and was attributed to Priam. Yes this was Amyntor Gerontos from the Kolophon inscription. But as we find out from SEG 31:636 Geron was a name found in Macedonia even in the period between 400-350 BC.

There may be -ion ending names in Macedon, but the veneration of Hephaistos was not to any degree worth mentoning. Again places like Samothrace (with the Kabeiroi), Samos, Lycia, Athens however do. As evidenced by the "Hephaistion" in Athens. As one friend said it, why did they name their kid after a temple? The name Hephaistion does appear in Athens and Attica, Samos, Samothrace, Melos, Euboia prior or contemporaneously.

Applying the same logic, we should also assume Parmenion isnt a Macedonian name either. The name Parmenion appears in several instances in Greece but it seems not to appear in inscriptions from the region of Macedonia prior to the famous general but contrary only after his time. We simply cant be certain.

[Taphoi]

yes, Diodorus clearly describes Hephaestion as in command of the “bodyguard”. The “Seven” had no such commander and what is referred to here is, almost certainly, the “Royal Shield Bearers” or agema of the hypaspists (“Royal” Hypaspists).

Hi Paralus,

Unfortunately, you are quoting Heckel at his most Tarn-like.

Firstly, Arrian 3.15.1-2 is clear that Hephaistion was wounded in a cavalry engagement at Gaugamela, so it is most peculiar that Heckel should suggest that he was commanding an infantry unit at the time. It is also in speaking of Hephaistion's wound at Gaugamela that Diodorus 17.61.3 states that Hephaistion was the commander of the Bodyguards. There is simply no other explanation than that this meant the Seven since it must have been a cavalry unit and since it cannot have been the Royal Squadron of the Companion Cavalry, since that was commanded by Cleitus the Black at Gaugamela. There is no reason to believe that Hephaistion was not a member of the Seven from early in the reign. I know of no evidence that the Seven had no commander. Diodorus 17.61.3 is evidence that it did. Diodorus 16.93.9 states that Philip advanced Pausanias in rank among the Bodyguards, which looks like another clear statement that a pecking order existed among the Seven.

Bosworth has pointed out that the Seven do not seem to have held any other military commands until after Gaugamela. This neatly explains why we do not hear of any army rank for Hephaistion before Gaugamela.

Why is Heckel so keen to contradict and quibble with the evidence on this matter? Basically because Hephaistion's command of the Seven is quite at odds with Heckel's negative portrayal of the Chiliarch.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

Have to sneak in a comment here because I agree with you that throughout his writings Heckel seems to delight in a negative portrayal of Hephaistion. Am not so sure though about the following:

Firstly, Arrian 3.15.1-2 is clear that Hephaistion was wounded in a cavalry engagement at Gaugamela, so it is most peculiar that Heckel should suggest that he was commanding an infantry unit at the time.

Is it clear? After describing Alexander wheeling around to engage the Persian right and describing it as the fiercest cavalry engagement of the whole battle, Arrian goes on to say:

The barbarians who were drawn up in depth, since they were in squadrons, rallied, and clashed with Alexander’s troops front to front: there was no more javelin throwing and no maneuvering of horses, as usual in a cavalry engagement, but each strove hard to break his own way through: they kept on giving and taking blows unsparingly, treating this as the one hope of safety, inasmuch as they were men now no longer fighting for another’s victory, but for their own very lives. There about sixty of the Companions fell, and Hephaistion himself, Coenus and Menidas were wounded. Still, Alexander overcame these enemies also.

Now whilst Menidas commanded the mercenary cavalry, Coenus was in charge of an infantry battalion, so I can't quite see how the sentence makes it clear that Hephaistion was part of the cavalry. I mean, if we interpret it as so because his name is listed between the Companions and a commander of the mercenary cavalry then wouldn't we have to say that Coenus was also cavalry? Yet we know he was not.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

[Why is Heckel so keen to contradict and quibble with the evidence on this matter? Basically because Hephaistion's command of the Seven is quite at odds with Heckel's negative portrayal of the Chiliarch.

All of which is quite feasible.

The other view is that he will have commanded from on horse. As did those who commanded Phalanx taxeis. Heckel does not qubble that hephaestion was on horse here.

Unfortunatlely, without the benefit of a time machine, we are not likely to know.

[Taphoi]

Is it clear?

Hi Amyntoros,

Bosworth in his Commentary on Arrian's Anabasis (Books I to III in Vol. 1, p.311) says of this passage:

"Arrian implies that that Hephaestion, Coenus and Menidas were all wounded in this last hectic cavalry engagement. Coenus, however, was a phalanx commander fighting in the centre... probably Arrian's source mentioned Hephaestion's wound in the final melee and digressed to give a list of other notable casualties in the battle."

I would also note that there was another senior man named Coenus in Alexander's service, who was later a Satrap.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Morning Taphoi,

We're crossing posts here. Bosworth is likely correct. Again, I'd stress that the Macedonian nobility - in command of foot soldiery - likely, almost certainly, commanded so from horseback. Hence Coenus (the other fellow aside for the time being) etc. It's one of those things that rankles in Stone's film: Parmenion commanding the left on foot.

There is another passage, during the Indian campaign, where Ptolemy, as part of a mixed force of infantry, hypaspists and cavalry, dismounts to fight alonside the infantry. It is in book four though where i cannot recall.

I'd still agree that it is likely that Hephaesion is commanding the Royal Hypaspists - from horse - at Guagamela. It is likely that, as best they could, these troops will have followed their king into the melee that you quote Bosworth describing.

Unfortunately, you are quoting Heckel at his most Tarn-like.

Ouch! Tarn as epithet...

[Paralus]

Interestingly it seems that Philip, at Chaeronea, was decidedly on foot. Of course, translations can determine all, but it seems clear in Hammond's translation:

(4.2.2) At Chaeronea Philip, being in formation facing the Athenians, gaveway and retired. The Athenian commander, Stratocles, shouted out "we must not stop pressing the enemy hard until we drive them into Macedonia", and he did not slacken his pursuit. Philip, saying "Athenians do not know how to win", was retiring step by step, keeping his phalanx contracted and being protected inside the weapons...

He would be commanding the hypaspists, or Symatophylakes as they seemingly were also referred to under his reign, on this wing. He appears to have withdrawn with the phalanx in the synapsismos formation before stopping and charging forward.

Philip seems not to have minded commanding on foot.

[athenas owl]

Well, take gander at Heckel's Who Who. There's nary an Amyntor to be found, but countless Amyntas'.

If i am not mistaken this specific book contains biographies limited solely to the period of Alexander and doesnt cover before. I dont doubt at the time of Alexander, Amyntas was a widely spread name in Macedonia especially if we keep in mind some owners of the name had been previously Argead kings.

From the other hand i dont find in Heckel's book any Macedonian called Aerminas eventhough we know this was a Macedonian name at the times of Alexander I. Same with a Macedonian name sharing the same root with both Amyntas and Amyntor. There is no Amynandros either or at least googling inside his book didnt bring anything .

Searching about Amyntor i found out a reference by J. B. Bury in his Quarterly Review for July 1916 who is quoting the linguist Otto Hoffmann.

"Hoffmann speaks of the ending -- tor as especially characteristic of Macedonian names, noting Amyntor as a true Macedonian formation."

Geron is a Greek "name"? Doesn't it mean "old man"? Who was Amyntor son of Geron? Would that be something like Amyntor Jr.? Is this the Amyntor gerontos of Makedon from the Kolophon inscription? Then we are talking about the same person.

I would say Geron is a Homeric word. It had the political meaning initially of Elder or Leader and was attributed to Priam. Yes this was Amyntor Gerontos from the Kolophon inscription. But as we find out from SEG 31:636 Geron was a name found in Macedonia even in the period between 400-350 BC.

There may be -ion ending names in Macedon, but the veneration of Hephaistos was not to any degree worth mentoning. Again places like Samothrace (with the Kabeiroi), Samos, Lycia, Athens however do. As evidenced by the "Hephaistion" in Athens. As one friend said it, why did they name their kid after a temple? The name Hephaistion does appear in Athens and Attica, Samos, Samothrace, Melos, Euboia prior or contemporaneously.

Applying the same logic, we should also assume Parmenion isnt a Macedonian name either. The name Parmenion appears in several instances in Greece but it seems not to appear in inscriptions from the region of Macedonia prior to the famous general but contrary only after his time. We simply cant be certain.

Well, I would like to see some examples of Amyntor from Macedon prior to Alexander. Not being huffy, but would like to see them. And perhaps the exact wording of the SEG 31.636 and it's context? Please. I have many of them online bookmarked, but not that one.

So your interpretation of the Kolophon inscription differs, then? Obviously it does, but why do you feel the other interpretation is wrong? Again, I just want to know.

As for Hephaistion, I do think that the fact that Hephaistos is not known to be venerated to any degree in Macedonia, but certainly elsewhere from Lycia to Athens is indicative of a heritage not Macedonian. Though I suppose that perhaps Amyntor had a special time on Samthrace and was inspired to name a son after Hephaistos or in honour of him.

Which reminds me, can anyone recommend a good book on the etymology of Greek names? An extensive one. For example though we know her as Sappho, she might have thought of herself as Psappha. I would appreciate this more than you can know.

[Paralus]

Have to sneak in a comment here because I agree with you that throughout his writings Heckel seems to delight in a negative portrayal of Hephaistion.

I'm aware you believe that Heckel has an "agenda" when it comes to Hephaestion. Mostly it revolves around the fact that he was the single largest beneficiary of the Philotas murder. I'd agree he seems not to like the man.

That said, the notion of Hephaestion commanding the agema of the hypaspists is, in no way, a put down. He is commanding the king's royal foot guard, that which, by virtue of the term "agema" would imply nominal command by the king.

There is no reason to believe that Hephaistion was not a member of the Seven from early in the reign. I know of no evidence that the Seven had no commander. Diodorus 17.61.3 is evidence that it did. Diodorus 16.93.9 states that Philip advanced Pausanias in rank among the Bodyguards, which looks like another clear statement that a pecking order existed among the Seven.

That’s an argument that can apply both ways. There is no evidence for a commander of the “Seven”. Similarly, there is unequivocal evidence for (the timing of) Hephaestion’s appointment to the “Seven”.

My original point is that Diodorus’ source has confused his terms. It is likely that Hephaestion commanded the agema of the hypaspists or, as it is referred to elsewhere, the “somatophylakes”. Thus, when Diodorus says that Pausanias was advanced among the “bodyguards” he likely is misconstruing the term ‘somatophylakes”.

As suggested, Arrian’s reliance on Ptolemy – a member of this group – leads him confuse his terminology. Otherwise we are forced into the conclusion that the “Seven” were the reduction of one hundred (Arrian, 4.30.3):

He remained quiet until the withdrawal began, and then, with 700 of the “body-guards” (somatophylakes) and his shield-bearing infantry, he was the first to scale the rock…

Clearly Alexander didn’t reduce his “body-guard” by a factor of one hundred. What is being mistakenly referred to as the “Seven” or Alexander’s personal bodyguards are, in fact, the Royal Hypaspists or the agema of the hypaspists and the hypaspists (shield-bearing infantry).

Other terminology serves to confuse. Later, in the crossing of the Hydaspes, Arrian (5.13.4) seeks to differentiate the “seven” from Seleucus who is leading the Royal hypaspists:

Alexander himself embarked in a thirty-oared galley and went over, accompanied by Ptolemy, Perdiccas, and Lysimachus, the confidential body-guards, Seleucus, one of the Companions, who was afterwards king, and half of the shield-bearing guards; the rest of these troops being conveyed in other galleys of the same size…

Assembling a narrative some four hundred years after the event is likely to engender such confusion.

In any case, I've a mate's daughter's eighteenth birthday party to get along to. It will be, as are all "Lancelot's" parties, of Alexandrian nature.

[amyntoros]

Have to sneak in a comment here because I agree with you that throughout his writings Heckel seems to delight in a negative portrayal of Hephaistion.

I'm aware you believe that Heckel has an "agenda" when it comes to Hephaestion. Mostly it revolves around the fact that he was the single largest beneficiary of the Philotas murder. I'd agree he seems not to like the man.

That said, the notion of Hephaestion commanding the agema of the hypaspists is, in no way, a put down. He is commanding the king's royal foot guard, that which, by virtue of the term "agema" would imply nominal command by the king.

I was going to put something in my previous post which would have found me in agreement with your last paragraph above. I decided, however, to be brief because lately the more I compose the less satisfied I am with the results – the reason why I now have FIVE posts written for the War/lustre thread which will never see the light of day! Anyway, and to the point; although I do believe Heckel has something of an agenda when it comes to Hephaistion I agree that the notion of Hephaistion commanding infantry ought not to be considered part of it. And I would say this even if Hephaistion was thought to command a division other than the agema. You've already mentioned that Philip commanded on foot, but Craterus also comes immediately to mind – a man much admired by many, including Heckel who seems to want to absolve him of involvement in the Philotas affair despite all the evidence to the contrary. (This in his Marshals' chapter on Hephaistion.) Being a commander of the infantry ought not to be thought of as "less" than commanding cavalry, IMO, but there may be those here who consider it so. I seem to recall quite a kerfuffle when I started a thread about the possibility that Alexander commanded infantry at Chaeronea – almost as if it were an insult.

Best regards


Amyntoros

PS. I hardly dare ask how your mate earned the nickname of Lancelot!

[marcus]

It's one of those things that rankles in Stone's film: Parmenion commanding the left on foot.

Well, yes. Then again, in the film there is no sign of the Thessalian cavalry, who were under Parmenion's command on the left wing, also!

ATB

[Taphoi]

What is being mistakenly referred to as the “Seven” or Alexander’s personal bodyguards are, in fact, the Royal Hypaspists or the agema of the hypaspists and the hypaspists (shield-bearing infantry).

Arrian’s use of somatophylakes (bodyguards) for what he himself elsewhere calls the agema of the hypaspists (guard of the shield-bearers) appears to be loose or anachronistic language. As far as I can tell, this terminology is not found in Diodorus or Plutarch. In fact Plutarch, Alexander 51 distinguishes clearly between Alexander summoning his hypaspists and the Bodyguards (somatophylakes), who dragged Alexander to his chamber (similarly Plutarch, Alexander 39). Hence in the “Vulgate” sources, it appears that Somatophylakes generally means the personal and official Bodyguards of the king and not a regiment of “guards”. It amounts to special pleading to read across Arrian’s usage to re-interpret Diodorus’ statement that Hephaistion was chief of the Bodyguards, when there is no reason to disbelieve that the usual Vulgate meaning is intended.

It also seems that Arrian loosely used somatophylakes to refer to the entire corps of the hypaspists and not just one squadron among them. C. Bradford Welles thought this a sufficient reason to discount the possibility that Hephaistion commanded hypaspists at Gaugamela, because Nicanor seems to have commanded the hypaspists there.

The cavalry action at Gaugamela in which Hephaistion was wounded is described as a cavalry action by Arrian. The cavalry had been in hot pursuit of the Persians and had then turned back to rescue Parmenion’s wing. On the way they interrupted the escape of a numerically superior group of Persian cavalry, who seriously threatened them. Whereas it is conceivable that the (infantry) hypaspists had somehow caught up, that is not what Arrian describes and it is tricky to argue that infantry somehow stayed in touch with cavalry, whilst they were manoeuvring at top speed.

It is certainly untrue that the command of a squadron of hypaspists is in any way as significant as command of the Seven (later Eight) Bodyguards. These men became
the top staff officers of Alexander’s regime. It is tantamount to Hephaistion having already been Alexander’s deputy at Gaugamela: it puts him in a position relative to Alexander rather like Alistair Campbell’s position relative to Tony Blair for those who understand British politics. It is also difficult to see how Hephaistion could act as admiral of Alexander’s fleet in 332BC (Curtius 4.5.10) as a mere squadron leader of the hypaspists.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

It is certainly untrue that the command of a squadron of hypaspists is in any way as significant as command of the Seven (later Eight) Bodyguards. These men became the top staff officers of Alexander’s regime. It is tantamount to Hephaistion having already been Alexander’s deputy at Gaugamela: it puts him in a position relative to Alexander rather like Alistair Campbell’s position relative to Tony Blair for those who understand British politics. It is also difficult to see how Hephaistion could act as admiral of Alexander’s fleet in 332BC (Curtius 4.5.10) as a mere squadron leader of the hypaspists.

I agree totally with this - and I would be surprised if being a squadron commander of hypaspists made one more senior to any of the somatophylakes, in fact. I have no basis upon which to make that statement, of course, it's just my reading of the situation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the somatophylakes, although not holding additional military commands (as has already been noted), held a sort of brevet rank in the army.

My understanding has always been that Hephaestion did not achieve a 'significant' rank until after the deaths of Parmenion and Philotas. Until then, I can believe that, as one of Alexander's favourites, (and presumably as a proven warrior), he was given command of an ile of hetairoi... but as we already know, it won't have been the agema, as Cleitus was chief of them.

ATB

[amyntoros]

It is also difficult to see how Hephaistion could act as admiral of Alexander’s fleet in 332BC (Curtius 4.5.10) as a mere squadron leader of the hypaspists.

Okay, an entirely personal observation/question here from a person operating more from logic than from extensive knowledge of the military. (All authorities on military matters feel free to jump in. ) Why is it difficult to see? Does anyone else think it possible that because he was a favorite that Alexander would have had the common sense to wait until Hephaistion proved himself in battle before promoting him to an even higher position? I mean, Hephaistion isn't mentioned as being involved in any warfare before Gaugamela. We simply don't know what command position he may have held previously. There's this assumption that because he was so close to Alexander he must have been given one of the highest military positions from the start. I don't know if this holds true. Why could he not have been what you seem to consider a lowly squadron leader of the hypaspists at Gaugamela (Craterus, another favorite, is first recorded as being a commander of a battalion of pezhetairoi) and then promoted after being wounded in the battle? He was, as we know, promoted again at a later date. Personally, I think it unlikely that Alexander would have given a highest military position at the beginning of the campaign to an unproven favorite because it would not have sat well with the others. As it stands Hephaistion remained unpopular with the little clique of Craterus and Eumenes even after proving his worth.

Best regards,

[marcus]

It is also difficult to see how Hephaistion could act as admiral of Alexander’s fleet in 332BC (Curtius 4.5.10) as a mere squadron leader of the hypaspists.

I missed this bit when I quoted you before, and have just seen that Amyntoros has picked up on it. While I don't disagree per se with what you are saying, I don't see any reason why Hephaistion should not be given extra, or supernumerary command - see my previous comment about brevet ranks.

ATB