Alexander as gay icon

[Paralus]

Arguments to the contrary are disingenuous imho.

I would note that the argument is, in no way, disingenuous. Should you wish to disagree with it then say so: the imputation of the term is unnecessary. I would further note that in my experience – and especially on the internet – any opinion followed by “IMHO” almost always indicates a distinct lack of “H” .

We have been here before. In summary terms Diodorus uses two terms about this group accompanying Philip doruphoros and somatophylake. Plutarch utilises duruphoros. Further, Diodorus then describes Lysimachus and Perdiccas as somatophylake at this time when Alexander clearly appointed them at a later date.

To make things even ‘clearer’, as far as Dodorus is concerned, the arriving paides basilikoi in Asia are referred to as somatophylakes as well. It is just as clear that these are not members of “the seven”.

[Taphoi]

To make things even ‘clearer’, as far as Dodorus is concerned, the arriving paides basilikoi in Asia are referred to as somatophylakes as well. It is just as clear that these are not members of “the seven”.

No. They are not. What Diodorus says at 17.65.1 is that the new pages came out from Macedonia pros ten somatophylakian which means "with a view to becoming bodyguards", which could mean that they hoped to graduate to become members of the seven (or could simply mean that they would soon have the responsibility of personally guarding the king - the phrase is ambiguous and too much has been read into it).

Diodorus 17.110.1 writes that a thousand Persian youths were assigned to the palace "hypaspists", which sounds like a Cleitarchan reference to the royal agema of the hypaspists. Why would Diodorus call the same unit the somatophylakes at 16.93 and 17.61.3 as you and Heckel would have us believe? And I still haven't heard a credible explanation of how Hephaistion was involved in an isolated cavalry engagement at Gaugamela, if he commanded a regiment of infantry in that battle. Nor of how he commanded the Mediterranean
fleet, if his military rank was more junior than many of its existing officers. Nor why he is never given a military rank in any source until after the fall of Philotas, unless it was because he was a somatophylax rather than an army officer.

If we are asked to believe that Diodorus repeatedly meant to say hypaspist when he wrote somatophylax, then the onus is on whoever is proposing such a thing to prove it. Nothing resembling proof or even evidence has been put forward. All the circumstances support the idea that Pausanias was a member of the seven and that Hephaistion commanded the seven at Gaugamela, which is the literal meaning of Diodorus' words.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Again, we've been over this - at length - in a prior thread. Should you wish to refresh your memory of my points (including those made after you left the thread) you can surely find that thread via the search tool. I feel no great need to re-write the lot.

Diodorus 17.110.1 writes that a thousand Persian youths were assigned to the palace "hypaspists", which sounds like a Cleitarchan reference to the royal agema of the hypaspists. Why would Diodorus call the same unit the somatophylakes at 16.93 and 17.61.3 as you and Heckel would have us believe?

Precisely because Diodorus does not always use the term technically. He, in fact, refers to them as doruphoros (doryphoroi) and somatophylakes. As you once noted:

I do not say that the word always means a member of the Seven, because it can be used (as here?) in its literal and descriptive sense as well being the official title of the Seven.

Why does Diodorus refer to the hypaspists as the Argyraspides at Gaugamela? Is he then being non-technical in referring to the ladder bearers being followed by the "shield bearers" (hypaspists) at the "Camels Fort"? Perhaps he meant the Argyraspides?

[Taphoi]

I would argue that Diodorus (unlike Arrian) is reasonably consistent in his use of the three terms:

Hypaspists - literally shield-bearers - used as the name of the several regiments of guards in Alexander's army, one of which was "royal" or "palace" and seems to have provided some of the doryphoroi. Nicknamed the argyraspides - literally Silver Shields - perhaps because Alexander gave them silver-embossed shields at the start of the Indian campaign, but nobody is quite sure when this name was coined and there is nothing strange in it being used (even if anachronistically) by Diodorus (Cleitarchus) in mentioning them at Gaugamela.

Doryphoroi - literally spear-carriers - used to describe troops on guard duty (of the type where one stands with a spear either side of entrances etc.) They are mentioned as being in the background in the theatre when Pausanias slew Philip, but Pausanias is obviously not one of them. If he had been, he would not have needed to conceal a dagger beneath his cloak, but would have been better armed.

Somatophylakes - literally Bodyguards - usually means the seven personal bodyguards of the King and usually very high ranking Macedonians. Sometimes refers to personal bodyguards of other senior individuals, but Pausanias is called the Somatophylax of the king, which is a very strong indication that he was one of the seven.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Efstathios]

I'd have too agree with Andrew here. Plus, these terms were used by writers of the 1st century, and by that time they might have been altered. Despite of Diodoros quoting Cleitarhos, we don't know if he used the same words. For example, the word "doryforoi" (plural) literally meant those who carry spears. But the term essentially described guards. But doryforos has also another meaning. It's the satellite aka a moon orbiting a planet, or generally something that is around a central thing or person. The word now is used mainly for space objects like moons and manmade satellites. Clearly this was derived from the initial doryforoi who were guards, usually around a person, and if that was not the case in Alexander's time, and doryforoi were standing at the back while somatofylakes were surrounding the King, then surely that changed at some point, in order for the word to have the meaning of persons around a central figure, or moons around a planet, and "doryforoi" was probably used as a synonym with "somatofylakes". Just an idea though, but i would advise you not to stand so much at the words used, because we do not have the original manuscripts of Cleitarhos for example, so we don't know for sure how Diodoros used these terms.

[Paralus]

Stathi: you are quite correct. "Satellite" is a word utilised (in English) by another Greek speaker I converse with quite a lot. The import is clear: these surrounded the king. How technically these terms were used by those who wrote centuries after the events is another thing entirely.

The “more accurate” Arrian is an example. And this a “military man”.

I find it odd that Pausanias – one of the “personal bodyguards” (somatophylake) – is not armed. He, ostensibly, has to conceal his only weapon. One is left to conjecture that the somatophylakes comported themselves unarmed aside from concealed daggers.

Actually the Greek is pros ten somatophylakian, which could be translated as “with a view to becoming Bodyguards”, so it is a bit ambiguous what Diodorus means (and recall that Diodorus is summarising Cleitarchus, often rather clumsily). However, this use is anyway not inconsistent with my view that somatophylakes always means personal and official bodyguards of the king in the Vulgate, because we know (e.g. the Pages’ conspiracy) that the Pages did serve as personal bodyguards around Alexander’s tent. I do not say that the word always means a member of the Seven, because it can be used (as here?) in its literal and descriptive sense as well being the official title of the Seven.

And so Diodorus cannot be using the word in its descriptive, or literal, sense about Pausanians?

[Paralus]

Hypaspists - literally shield-bearers - used as the name of the several regiments of guards in Alexander's army, one of which was "royal" or "palace" and seems to have provided some of the doryphoroi. Nicknamed the argyraspides - literally Silver Shields - perhaps because Alexander gave them silver-embossed shields at the start of the Indian campaign, but nobody is quite sure when this name was coined….

You seem to be suggesting that the agema of the hypaspists became the Silver Shields? I’d suggest that is utterly wrong. You may also have not constructed that paragraph terribly well or, then again, I have misread it.

The name was well attested after the death of Alexander and, one imagines, insisted upon in response to plethora of “hypaspists” in the service of the Diadochoi. It is quite likely that the unit utilised this nickname prior to that – but nickname it was. I would think that the name came into definite use post Triparadeisos. Until that time the hypaspists were still the king’s Guards; afterwards this was no longer so.

Not men to mess with as Antigonus’ Macedonians found at Gabiene.

[Taphoi]

You seem to be suggesting that the agema of the hypaspists became the Silver Shields? I’d suggest that is utterly wrong. You may also have not constructed that paragraph terribly well or, then again, I have misread it.

All of the hypaspists (as far as we know) were afterwards nicknamed Silver Shields (in case there is any ambiguity.)

Agema is itself a dodgy word. It is the equivalent of the latin agmen and really only means a body/regiment/corps/phalanx within an army or larger body of troops. You really need to add "royal" or "palace" as a descriptor, before the terminology becomes specific. Another of the regiments within the hypaspist corps could equally be called an agema of the hypaspists.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Hence "royal" hypaspists. Agema in the sense of the word used for the ile basilike later in Alexander's reign and regularly for the Diadochoi of their "guard" troop. The rationale being, of course, that these formed the original pezhetairoi of Philip's retinue which was extended by him to "best" of the Macedonians (non-nobles) to form what became the hypaspist corps.

[Taphoi]

There is an implicit difference in scale between agema and ile.

Agema is perhaps best translated as "regiment" by analogy with its Latin equivalent agmen and also because Diodorus is explicit that the the Palace Hypaspists, who are presumably the Royal Agema of the Hypaspists, were 1000 strong (from other refs too it looks as though the hypaspists comprised three regiments, each 1000 strong). Ile is the equivalent of the Latin ala (literally "wing"), but the best English translation is probably "squadron". The Latin term was especially used of cavalry and strictly meant 64 cavalrymen, although it is often used more loosely.

This does make me wonder whether Roman military terminology (agmen and ala) are being retrospectively applied to Alexander's units by our Roman era sources (particularly Arrian).

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

This does make me wonder whether Roman military terminology (agmen and ala) are being retrospectively applied to Alexander's units by our Roman era sources (particularly Arrian).

I wouldn't find much to disagree with in that. There is the suggestion that the hypaspist corps was 4,000 strong by the end of the reign. At bottom, we are reduced to debate based on language utilised by authors writing well after the events. It is apparent that Arrian – consummate writer he supposes himself to be – does not quite ken the subtleties that Ptolemy and Aristobulos (and Kallisthenes) take for granted. Indeed a much earlier Greek - Polybios - fails to realise that he is not dealing with Philip's or Alexander's army when indulging himself in splenetic criticism of Kallisthenes. Hence Arrian’s confused utilisation of pezhetairoi, hoplite, Aesthetairoi, hypaspist, royal hypaspist and somatophylake. The argument that he was “a military man” and should well know makes very light of the fact that he was a military man of Rome (no matter his Greek heritage) – the nature of whose forces had changed considerably since the Republican era as well.

An example off the top of my head would be the “royal regiment of the guards and next to these troops the royal guards and then the rest of the guards regiments as their position on the day dictated” or some such at Hydaspes. Clearly the first two are one and the same: the agema of the hypaspists. The rest after the regular hypaspists are, of course, the two taxeis of the phalanx brought across. Exactly as Arrian enumerates the troops that Alexander took in his battle force (which has much to say about the strength of Porus’ forces: clearly his numbers were nowhere near to 30-50,000 or 200 elephants).

[Taphoi]

...Arrian’s confused utilisation of ...hypaspist, royal hypaspist and somatophylake.

There is a strong analogy between the [Royal] hypaspists and the Praetorian Guard. I know that some Roman historians writing in Greek sometimes referred to the Praetorians as phylakes (e.g. Herodian 2.1.2, where the Praetorians are actually guarding the palace, although he more commonly uses doryphoroi). It is quite reasonable therefore for Arrian to have referred to the hypaspists as phylakes. Might a subsequent editor of his manuscript have assumed he meant somatophylakes and made the "corrections" (the text of Arrian mostly reaches us via a single intermediate manuscript)? Or does anyone know of an instance where the Praetorians are called somatophylakes?

It is true however that Arrian is sometimes wobbly on the terminology. He famously (Anabasis 7.14.10) misunderstood Hephaistion's title of Chiliarch, evidently thinking that it referred to his command of a Hipparchy of the Companion Cavalry. Diodorus was less exposed to such misunderstandings, because he was mainly just abridging Cleitarchus, rather than originating an entirely new text.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Diodorus 17.110.1 writes that a thousand Persian youths were assigned to the palace "hypaspists", which sounds like a Cleitarchan reference to the royal agema of the hypaspists. Why would Diodorus call the same unit the somatophylakes at 16.93 and 17.61.3 as you and Heckel would have us believe?

Because it is apparent that Ptolemy does as well in Arrian. You might just as well ask Diodorus. That, though, is a rather difficult task…

All of that aside, Diodorus is most likely correct in this description. This is most certainly a reference to the agema of the hypaspists. Arrian is most unhelpful in his descriptions of these major changes embarked upon by Alexander. He is almost certainly incorrect in associating this 1,000 with another cavalry “chiliarchy” as other evidence demonstrates. In any case, that Diodorus’ 1,000 were integrated into that group is unlikely in the extreme. The evidence is quite against it. That evidence points to a separate group of melophoroi (“apple” bearers) as a Persian compliment to the hypaspists. This, as you say, might indicate that the "royal" hypaspists were in the order of 1,000. Ancient numbers are, in the end, like Enron accountants: about means whatever and any figure means thereabouts.

That they were given the task of king’s bodyguard cut deep though. As did the according of Macedonian names to other units – including argyraspids.

[Taphoi]

Hi Paralus,

I have had a look at the four refs in Arrian's Anabasis (1.6.5, 3.17.2, 4.3.2 & 4.30.3) which are supposed by Heckel (and many others) to show that he uses somatophylakes to mean the royal regiment of the hypaspists and discover that I am quite unconvinced that these are not in fact refs to the Seven.

I think I see the point that the somatophylakes seem to be mentioned in the same task forces as very large units and that it is strange that seven men should matter among forces of hundreds or thousands. But is this enough to conclude that a larger body is meant?

Here are some reasons to suspect that these references do in fact refer to the Seven:

1) The first reference 1.6.5 makes it clear that its somatophylakes were mounted. Whereas it is not impossible that Alexander had given horses to some of his infantry, it does stretch the meaning of the term infantry in what was evidently a battle situation. In fact the only other unit involved in the particular action here is the hetairoi, so it is not necessary to envisage vast numbers.

2) In the second, third and fourth refs the somatophylakes are mentioned in combination with the hypaspists, but as though they were a separate unit, which is slightly strange if they were in fact a regiment from within the hypaspist corps.

3) In the fourth ref 4.30.3 we have the very curious number of 700 men being included in the task force. This does not correspond to the probable strength of 1000 for an hypaspist regiment. Should we not seek an explanation for such a strange number being chosen? Such an explanation is in fact to hand, since we know that there were precisely seven somatophylakes. What if Ptolemy had actually written that Alexander took the somatophylakes with seven hundreds of the hypaspists on this mission. We have both an explanation for the total and an explanation of why the somatophylakes were mentioned: because they commanded the individual hundreds for the purpose of the mission.

4) If the above were correct, then it could explain the combination of mentions of the hypaspists and the somatophylakes for the second and third refs too.

Whereas the refs in Arrian to the somatophylakes may not always mean the Seven, I cannot see that it is necessary to believe it is a different unit than the Seven that is meant in these four standard refs.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Arrian, Anabasis, 1.6.5:
As Alexander saw only a few of the enemy still occupying a ridge, along which lay his route, he ordered his bodyguards and personal companions to take their shields, mount their horses,

Now what needs to be determined is the difference between “personal companions” and “bodyguards”. I’m not able to access the Latinised Greek but I imagine the latter are somotophylakes and the former hetairos. I know of no convincing evidence that the companion cavalry carried apsides into battle (aside from the solitary – and disputed line – in Diodorus’ description on Granicus). My view is that the bodyguards so described are royal hypaspists (the king’s “usual retinue” in Curtius).

Whereas it is not impossible that Alexander had given horses to some of his infantry, it does stretch the meaning of the term infantry in what was evidently a battle situation.

These would be the same “infantry” that Alexander has mount horses “in their normal armour” (or some such) to pursue Darius elsewhere. These, self evidently, are not phalangite “grunts” but hypaspists and almost certainly “royal” hypaspists.

In fact the only other unit involved in the particular action here is the hetairoi, so it is not necessary to envisage vast numbers

Yet Arrian feels disposed to elucidate:

…half of them were to leap from their horses, and to fight as foot-soldiers, being mingled with the cavalry.

We are talking in terms of hundreds (at minimum) I’d imagine rather than tens as “half” of them are to fight “amongst the cavalry”. That would, to me, indicate that the “bodyguards” are not normally “cavalry” – the “companions” are though.

I would also take this view of the below line from Arrian:

Arr. 4.3.2
…he took the body-guards, the shield-bearing guards, the archers, and Agrianians…

To the last...

Arr. 4.30.3
He remained quiet until they began their retreat; then taking ‘700 of the body-guards and shield-bearing infantry…

Your suggestion has some merit. It presupposes the classic “scribal error” though. Whereas this is not impossible it is not necessarily probable. There is no compelling reason to suppose an error based on chiliarchy. We hear (in other sources) of “500 argyraspids” standing guard. It is not to be presumed that Alexander always took, at a minimum, a chiliarchy of hypaspists.

As it stands, there is no reason to number the hypapspists unless that number was less than a “unit” or chiliarchy. Equally there is no reason to number “the seven”.

3.17.2 is, I'd agree, a little more ambiguous. I'd need to see the Latinsed Greek to happy discussing it.

There are other indications in Arrian that his understanding of the difference between the somatophylakes or “royal” hypaspists and the hypaspists (as used, presumably, by Ptolemy) is flawed. The siege of Tyre is one such:

The shield-bearing guards occupied one of these vessels, which he had put under the command of Admetus; and the other was occupied by the regiment of Coenus, the so called aesthetairoi. Alexander himself, with the shield-bearing guards...

Say again? All 3,000 of them? Unlikely. What is clearly meant here are the royal hypaspists who also appear as hetairoi on the wall.

Again, we’ve been down this path before and we both have firm views. I doubt either of us are likely to change those views. We are, as I noted earlier, debating terms used by a writer (Arrian in this case) well after the events. I do appreciate the manner in which the discussion has taken place though.