Shield Bearer uniform

[agesilaos]

Plutarch confuses Antipatros and Antigonos as does Diodoros, and even Brian Bosworth, Blessed be His Name!(The Legacy of Alexander has a couple of errors like this demonstrating that human proof-reading has not been made redundant by spell-check only rendered economically unviable by the net book hyper tax on knowledge !!!! I digress) may even have made the odd slip myself, called a former girlfriend Marion for the first two months or so, her name was Miriam, I cannot repeat what she called me.

I think it is likely that Curtius did get his information on Macedonian customs from Kleitarchos; his other main source, Ptolemy seems not to have explained much if Arrian's evident ignorance of the terms he uses is anything to go by. This is further evidence that Kleitarchos was writing for a Greek rather than Macedonian audience whereas Ptolemy was writing for Macedonians who clearly had no need of having their own institutions explained.

As for 'glosses' explaining things, look at the mess caused by the scholia on 'pezhetairoi'; like the man says, 'Be careful what you wish for...'

[hiphys]

By the way, it seems that Ptolemy wasn't at all a long- winded speech lover, but rather laconic in his writings, if we may judge from the extant fragments of his work.

[Paralus]

By the way, it seems that Ptolemy wasn't at all a long- winded speech lover, but rather laconic in his writings, if we may judge from the extant fragments of his work.

Ptolemy was far more adept at "massaging the message". Far from the limited separatist he is far too often portrayed as, he was a politically adept and deliberate imperialist who tilted at rule over the empire (ton holon) as means and opportunity dictated.

I think it is likely that Curtius did get his information on Macedonian customs from Kleitarchos;

That might well be so - especially if he wrote for a Greek audience as you say. Curtius was no dill and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he explained some of this himself. Without his missing opening books, which may have explained a considerable amount, certainty is impossible. The picture of a Cleitarchus more interested in the sensational doesn't necessarily detract from that. For example, one does need to know something of the nature of the paides basilikoi to understand the story of the plot against the king.

his other main source, Ptolemy seems not to have explained much if Arrian's evident ignorance of the terms he uses is anything to go by.

That too is often assumed. I'd agree that Ptolemy might not have felt the need to explain Macedonian terms and institutions to an audience that understood it. Much would depend upon when he wrote. Some favour an early date - not too long after Alexander's death. This plays into the propaganda of the Diadoch wars. Others hold later in life with retro-justification. One can maybe go too far in positing propaganda motives though. A late date might see a wider audience than an earlier one?

Anyway, Ptolemy did seem to use many a Macedonian term but it might not necessarily Soter's fault that Arrian uses several terms for the same thing. Arrian did think himself the "Alexander" of writing. On the subject of this thread, the hypaspists (if not their uniform), Arrian uses hetairoi, somatophylax, somatophylakes basilikoi, hypaspistae basilikoi, hypaspistae, agema basilikoi and agema for the hypaspists and their units. His source(s) most likely used all of them and Arrian may simply show off his skill by refusing to use the same term throughout. Who knows?

[agesilaos]

I don't think Arrian understood the subtleties of his sources usage, as evidence we have the famous complaints at Opis VII 11 iii, where there will be a Persian agema, pezhetairoi and asthetairoi, argyraspdes and an agema of the Companion cavalry ; the foot agema is duplicated arguably by the pezhetaroi certainly by the late term argyraspids, it is unclear whether Arrian has any sense of who the asthetairoi were (in this we join him), this is not lifted from a source but is our author showing how many Macedonian units he can name!

Where the hypaspists are referred to as 'hetairoi' I think the qualification, 'amph'auton' has dropped out of the text, this seems to have been the designation for the unit tasked with actually guarding the King, they were seated on couches with silver feet during audiences so it was perhaps only a dekad strong.

[Paralus]

I don't think Arrian understood the subtleties of his sources usage, as evidence we have the famous complaints at Opis VII 11 iii, where there will be a Persian agema, pezhetairoi and asthetairoi, argyraspdes and an agema of the Companion cavalry ; the foot agema is duplicated arguably by the pezhetaroi certainly by the late term argyraspids

I think that this list was found in his source. It is one of the key complaints of the soldiery that Persians are formed into Macedonian units and worse that those barbarian units take Macedonian nomenclature. This doesn't rule out the possibility that his source simply said that Persians were "formed into units the same as the Macedonians and with the same name" (or some such) and Arrian felt compelled to show us how brilliant he was with those unit names. Other matters speak against it...

Firstly Arrian says that an Argyraspid "battalion" (taxis) was formed. Coincidentally, Diodorus tells that 1,000 Persians were assigned to the hypaspists "stationed at the court" (peri ten aulen). Whilst this has been taken as possibly a confusion of those assigned to a squadron of the cavalry, there is no reason to suppose so. Arrian clearly states that a Persian agema was formed and Persian argyraspids. One thousand hypaspists coheres with either and would confirm a "taxis" of hypaspists as 1,000.

Pace Errington, I do not think that Alexander put together his own guard units as hypaspists and Philip's pezhetairoi continued as some "higher status unit". The name for this unit had been changed (and that's another subject). By Opis it had changed again and, so, when Arrian writes of the Argyraspids he writes of the hypaspists ('regular'). His reference to the agema is to the agema of the hypaspists. The foot agema is a "sub-troop" of the hypaspists - the king's personal troop. It is not the pezhetairoi and it is not the argyraspids or 'regular' hypaspists. Throughout the Anabasis Arrian distinguishes these two units. Sometimes the smaller "King's own" troop is termed the agema and others the somatophylakes or "agema basilikoi" (hetairoi below).

Where the hypaspists are referred to as 'hetairoi' I think the qualification, 'amph'auton' has dropped out of the text, this seems to have been the designation for the unit tasked with actually guarding the King, they were seated on couches with silver feet during audiences so it was perhaps only a dekad strong.

I don't think so. Arrian uses "hetairoi" to refer to the agema - certainly stronger than a dekad. At 4.30.3 Alexander leads "some 700 of the somatophylakes and hypaspists" (somatophulakon kai ton hupaspiston es heptakosious) into a city. This does not mean some "700 of the seven and hypaspists" and nor can it mean "some 700 of the dekad and hypaspists". Such would be extremely clumsy for the Alexander of writing. It meas 700 of the agema and hypaspists.

Elsewhere Alexander, in company with a certain Admetos, takes the the breach in the wall at Tyre with his hetairois (Arr. 2.23.6). This from a ship described (at 2.23.2) as carrying the hypaspists "with whom Alexander himself intended to mount the wall". Admetos is obviously commanding the hypaspists who are certainly the agema. It is most unlikely that this use of hetairoi is describing the Companion Cavalry. Confirmation comes later, at Massaka, where Alexander does exactly the same thing with exactly the same troops (4.26.6): "Alexander led up the hypaspists, the very unit that had demolished Tyre for him in the same way". Here Arrian's "hetairoi" of Tyre are hypaspists.

Unfortunately for me, whilst the Wallabies agema (scrum) performed well, our regular hypaspists (backs) suffered rather damaging casualties. I look forward to next week with a full complement of backs and an openside flanker playing there rather than inside centre!

[Xenophon]

All this nomenclature may sound rather confusing to some readers here, so it may pay to explain the origins of 'agema'. Originally, in a hoplite army or phalanx, 'agema' simply meant 'leading unit'. Thus it was the unit which formed the vanguard on the march, and the honoured "right of the line" when the march column deployed into phalanx or line. Naturally, such a unit acquired prestige over the other units of the phalanx. Later, in Macedonian usage the hypaspists, which probably comprised some 2,000 men originally at the beginning of Alexander's reign, divided in all likelihood into 4 x 500 men lochoi, of which one comprised the 'Agema', more prestigious than the others. This particular unit provided an inner bodyguard for the King.

Later the Hypaspists seem to have been expanded to 3,000 (probably at Susa)and later still to 4,000, now organised into 'chilarchies' ( 1,000 strong).

I too take heart from a splendid performance of the Wallabies despite their misfortunes - not forgetting that they would have won had not Beale missed a goal late in the game, and then in the last minute he slipped over while taking another shot! The Lions had two lucky let-offs.....

The Wallabies performance will have certainly silenced all those who thought the Lions would have a relatively easy win !!

[agesilaos]

Oh dear, I can't really agree with much of that to deal with the agema first, the word only occurs in Hellenistic or later authors, Polybios, Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Diodoros XVIII-XX and Arrian to be precise. Its literal meaning is 'those led' rather than 'those leading' so I don't think your etymology can be correct. In classical Greece the elite troops were called 'epilektoi' in most states meaning 'chosen men', 'agema' occurs only in the context of Macedonian or successor armies as far as I can see which suggests that it is a Macedonian usage. I would posit that the agema were the 'gang' of Macedonian nobles and that when the central monarchy took hold the term was transferred to the closest followers of the King. When more formal organisation was imposed the 'agema' became the 'Basilike eile' though the old name probably persisted unofficially resurfacing at the end of Alexander's reign perhaps as a sop to those 'Little-makedones' who disapproved of the ongoing orientalising of the reign. Otherwise we are faced with a high status mounted unit adopting the name of a foot unit.which is unlikely.

I can't see where you get 2,000 for the original hypaspists, there are 12,000 macedonian foot cited by Diodoros at the crossing into Asia which are neatly broken down into six 1,500 strong phalangarches and three chiliarchia of hypaspists, dropping the number of hypaspists to 2000 leaves 1000 phalangites to apportion or 166 per unit which throws the mathematics of the phalanx rather out of kilter. 16X16 gives 256 six of these basic units make 1536 an extra 166 is difficult to absorb adding an extra sub-unit (probably a hekatostyes see the thread on that subject) one is actually adding 540 men and whilst it id possible that such a number would be rounded down the residual 6x36 raise the actual number to 12,756 more likely to become 13,000 when rounding.

The increase to 4,000 I recognise as stemming from Curtius' description of the appointment of eight chiliarchs V 2 iii-v

3 Chiliarchas vocabant tunc primum in hunc numerum copiis distributis: namque antea quingenariae cohortes fuerant nec fortitudinis praemia cesserant.º 4 Ingens militum turba convenerat egregio interfutura certamini, testis eadem cuiusque factorum et de iudicibus latura sententiam: quippe verone an falso honos cuique haberetur, ignorari non poterat. 5 Primus omnium virtutis causa donatus est Atharrias senior, qui omissum apud Halicarnasson a iunioribus proelium unus maxime accenderat: proximus ei Antigenes visus est: tertium locum Philotas Augaeus obtinuit: quartus Amyntae datus: post hos Antigonus et ab eo Lyncestes Amyntas fuit: septimum locum Theodotus, ultimum obtinuit Hellanicus.

 

This is a nonsense which some have attempted to improve by making the eight pentekosiarchs and the whole refer to the hypaspists. On the surface the name Antigenes does suggest that the hypaspists may be meant, if one accepts the identification with the Argyraspides. One might suggest that the eight officers actually are the eight hekatoysiarchs of the two non agema chiliarchia, but this does as much damage to what Curtius says as making them pentekosiarchs. This passage has to be treated.as garbled. Further, later 3,000 seems to be the number associated with the Argyraspides.

Talking of numbers it did seem to me as if their were definitely 16 Wallabies on the field, Pollock had some strange ideas about the laws, I accept that down under the breakdown has become an area of no contest, but he seemed to have forgotten that holding onto the ball is an offence too, though he remembered for the couple of times the lions did, conveniently ignoring the men in gold and green diving over the top! Hey, I'm a Pom it's my birthright to whinge. Ref aside there were alarming signs from a nimble (kouphas?) Aussie back division Israel Funabo and the gega guy, your scrum is pants, however, your Rugby Governors need t get it into their heads that Union is a multi-dimensional game and that their constant attempts to waterdown the forward element only harm their own sides, if they want a backs game they should go govern League. This was especially evident in Pollock's guess when I'm going to call 'Set' approach to the scrum (hands up, I am an ex prop with prop's sensibilities – beer and titties? Well mr Zappa, yes... and sadly in that order! .). It was a shame about the injuries and hopefully they will not prove serious. The first I thought was a symptom of the Wallabies' lack of match play, I have got my head the wrong side of a tackle a couple of times, surprised I can still parse a sentence!). I hope the Lions will not be robbed by referee glitches, but at the same time the number of Wallies out injured make it less triumphant should we win. Still, there's always the Ashes.....if it's not rained off!

[Paralus]

I can't see where you get 2,000 for the original hypaspists, there are 12,000 macedonian foot cited by Diodoros at the crossing into Asia which are neatly broken down into six 1,500 strong phalangarches and three chiliarchia of hypaspists, dropping the number of hypaspists to 2000 leaves 1000 phalangites to apportion or 166 per unit which throws the mathematics of the phalanx rather out of kilter. 16X16 gives 256 six of these basic units make 1536 an extra 166 is difficult to absorb adding an extra sub-unit (probably a hekatostyes see the thread on that subject) one is actually adding 540 men and whilst it id possible that such a number would be rounded down the residual 6x36 raise the actual number to 12,756 more likely to become 13,000 when rounding.

Oh double dear! You've no idea the size of the worm can you've taken the lid off. I will say no more as I'm certain I will not have to.

This is a nonsense which some have attempted to improve by making the eight pentekosiarchs and the whole refer to the hypaspists. On the surface the name Antigenes does suggest that the hypaspists may be meant, if one accepts the identification with the Argyraspides. One might suggest that the eight officers actually are the eight hekatoysiarchs of the two non agema chiliarchia, but this does as much damage to what Curtius says as making them pentekosiarchs. This passage has to be treated.as garbled. Further, later 3,000 seems to be the number associated with the Argyraspides.

The Curtius passage is garbled. It is difficult to understand Macedonian officers subjecting themselves to a contest of bravery to win promotion. In any case, it is at this time that Alexander begins the process of promotion on merit rather than ethnic background, etc. It is more sensible to see this as awards for bravery (and competence) in the field during the extended rest in Sittacene. How certain we are that these are hypaspists (Attharias and Antigenes lend support though Antigenes does not seem to command hypaspists until Hydaspes) is questionable.

What is clear is that there was a corps of troops called the hypaspists. There was also a corps named the foot agema or agema of the hypaspists (also referred to by Arrian as "somatophylakes"). The latter, as Heckel has shown, were comprised of the sons of the nobility who'd completed service in the paides basilikoi. Another stage in his "Makedonian Cursus Honorum" The Argyraspids are attested as 3,000 (three chiliarchies) whenever mentioned (twice explicitly). There is never a mention of an agema associated with them. One might say then that the Argyraspids are not Alexander's hypaspists. That would be wrong as the evidence, such as it is, points overwhelmingly in that direction - Diodorus and Curtius both place the Argyraspids exactly where Arrian places the "regular" hypaspists in the Guagamela battle line: hard to the left of the agema (agema ton hypaspiston) who are in contact with the Companions..

At Triparadeisos the Argyraspids are "demobbed" to satrapal and coin cartage duties under Antigenes who they are still with when summoned to Eumenes' service. They are, again, 3,000 strong and have no attested "agema" associated with them. Whence the agema? They will have gone with the kings and their regent I suspect as they were not to be retired and these nobles are hardly to be delegated as Antigenes' satrapal troops. All of which, to my mind, points to a total hypaspist corps (regular plus agema) of nearer to 4,000 by reign's end.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

Oh dear, I can't really agree with much of that to deal with the agema first, the word only occurs in Hellenistic or later authors, Polybios, Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Diodoros XVIII-XX and Arrian to be precise. Its literal meaning is 'those led' rather than 'those leading' so I don't think your etymology can be correct. In classical Greece the elite troops were called 'epilektoi' in most states meaning 'chosen men', 'agema' occurs only in the context of Macedonian or successor armies as far as I can see which suggests that it is a Macedonian usage.

I'm guessing you've been consulting the LSJ word frequency table ? Unfortunately, as frequently occurs, the LSJ is less than accurate. It omits the usage of the word by Xenophon in several instances ( e.g. Xen Const. Lac. XI.9; XIII.6) to describe the 'leading' unit of the First Mora of the Spartan army, when describing drill manoeuvres. Also, the word derives from the verb 'age' = to lead, bring, fetch, carry and c.f. 'agemon' = leader, one who leads. ( The LSJ definition as 'those led' is incorrect, for this does not fit with what Xenophon describes).

In Xenophon's usage, the 'agema' is simply used to describe the leading, or vanguard, unit, and not necessarily to describe an elite unit, as I said in my previous post. It is therefore quite different to ‘epilektoi’, and I agree the latter means chosen, or picked, men. The term seems to have been first used of such a picked body by Thucydides, who refers to 1,000 ‘picked Argives’ taking part in the battle of Mantinea, 418 BC [Thuc.V.72]

I can't see where you get 2,000 for the original hypaspists, there are 12,000 macedonian foot cited by Diodoros at the crossing into Asia which are neatly broken down into six 1,500 strong phalangarches and three chiliarchia of hypaspists.

I mentioned in an earlier post that we have surprisingly scant information about the Macedonian army, and this is an example. That the Taxeis of the phalanx numbered some 1,500 rests solely on this passage,[D.S.XVII.17.4] and an incorrect assumption or two. I believe Brunt first proposed this, assuming that all 6 taxeis crossed with Alexander, and knowing there were Hypaspists in addition, he simply deduced 6 x 1500, with the 3,000 left over being the Hypaspists . But taxeis of 1500 don’t work, nor are phalanx units of this size recorded anywhere – the Hellenistic manualsdo have units of 2,000 however. The first incorrect assumption is that 6 ‘pezhetairoi’ units crossed with Alexander ( deduced from known units present at Gaugemala). In fact it is highly likely that at least one taxis was already in Asia. Polyaenus (Stratagems V.44.4) records Philip’s advance force as 10,000 men in round figures. According to Diodorus (XVII.7.10) these were composed of both mercenaries and Macedonians. Those crossing with Alexander, then, will have been 5 x2,000 men taxeis, leaving 2,000 ‘Hypaspists’.
I first postulated this size of 2,000 men for the taxis back in the late ‘70’s, and published it in “Warfare in the Classical World” by John Warry ( 1980 Salamander) – see e.g. text boxes p.76;80 and 81, but I don’t expect that I was the first to conclude these numbers. The case for these numbers is best propounded in detail by Luke Ueda-Sarson, and can be found here:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... Notes.html
Luke’s site has a number of excellent articles on the Macedonian army that will be of interest to anyone curious about Alexander’s army.
Also, the term ‘chiliarchies’ for 1,000 men units does not occur until much later ( after Susa ), and the basic sub-units will have been 500 strong in the earlier campaigns.

The increase to 4,000 I recognise as stemming from Curtius' description of the appointment of eight chiliarchs V 2 iii-v

I would agree with you that this does not provide evidence for an increase to 4,000. Whilst our sources tell us the Hypaspists, now called ‘Argyraspides’ were 3,000 strong in 318 BC [ Diodorus XVIII.54.1], as Luke points out, this is only the oldest veterans, returning with Craterus, and at Diodorus XIX.28.1 he says they were “over 3,000 strong”. Luke’s article gives additional evidence for 4,000 Hypaspists ultimately.
As to the Lions Wallabies match, here the natural assumption is that Pollock, being a Kiwi, is biased against the Aussies !! That probably means his refereeing is about right, I guess. At least he’s not one of those whistle happy refs ! Frankly, I preferred his keeping the front rows guessing. This prevented the common Welsh tactic of anticipating, and playing silly buggers ( collapsing and so on) in order to ‘milk’ a penalty for Halfpenny to slot over.....
I take it that “Funabo and the gega guy” LOL! Is a reference to Israel Folao and our half-back, Will Genia? Genia certainly had much the better of Philips at half-back, and whilst you might think that the Jonah Lomu sized wingers North and Cuthbert would dominate, especially given Folau is completely inexperienced as a winger ( he usually plays full-back) , such was not the case, Folau scored twice and tackled to (just)save a try from North.....
The real difference between the sides was that our kickers missed 5 (of 9)shots at goal ( after our kicker went off injured early on ) and Halfpenny did not.....
Deja Vu...shades of that Wallabies bugbear Jonny Wilkinson.....
As to the Ashes, I shall try to maintain a dignified silence....though one little ray of sunshine is that we have thankfully sacked our South African coach today !!

[Paralus]

Whilst our sources tell us the Hypaspists, now called ‘Argyraspides’ were 3,000 strong in 318 BC [ Diodorus XVIII.54.1], as Luke points out, this is only the oldest veterans, returning with Craterus, and at Diodorus XIX.28.1 he says they were “over 3,000 strong”. Luke’s article gives additional evidence for 4,000 Hypaspists ultimately.

I believe you may have the reference incorrect - 18.54.1 discusses Cassander's doings. You might be referring to 18. 59.3 or 19.30.6 where the Argyraspids are described as "about 3,000" in number or "only 3,000". They are the 3,000 sent with Antigenes - "the commander of the Macedonian Argyraspidae" - to Susa from Triparadeisos (Arr. Succ. 1.35; 38 cf Justin's remarks on their behaviour at Triparadeisos, 14.5.11). Arrian's mention aside, Diodorus mentions their number three times, the third being 19.28.1 as you note. Here, according to the Loeb, the Sicilian writes that they were pleious triskhiliōn or "more than 3,000". Now, there are two fundamental codices for Diodorus: the Parisinus Graecus (R) and the Florentinus Laurentianus (F). The Loeb (Greer) is based on the Teubner (Fischer). Both have preferred the reading of R; this even unto accepting the misspelling of names that are clearly correct in F. In the above instance, both editors prefer R (pleious triskhiliōn) to F which states οὐ pleious triskhiliōn. The negative transforms 19.28.2: "not more than 3,000". Unless we are to argue the one outweighs the many, this is the correct reading and the Argyraspids were " about", "only" and "not more than" 3,000 in number.

These are the "regular hypaspists". By reign's end they were 3,000 in number, comprised of three chiliarchies, as Diodorus' report of a chiliarchy of Persian hypaspists indicates. They were not simply "the oldest', they were the sum total. The agema will have continued in service to the kings and their regent; their number is probably irrecoverable.

[Paralus]

I'm guessing you've been consulting the LSJ word frequency table ? Unfortunately, as frequently occurs, the LSJ is less than accurate. It omits the usage of the word by Xenophon in several instances ( e.g. Xen Const. Lac. XI.9; XIII.6) to describe the 'leading' unit of the First Mora of the Spartan army, when describing drill manoeuvres. Also, the word derives from the verb 'age' = to lead, bring, fetch, carry and c.f. 'agemon' = leader, one who leads. ( The LSJ definition as 'those led' is incorrect, for this does not fit with what Xenophon describes).

Not to steal any of Agesilaos' thunder, but as the Perseus frequency tool is off having a sabatical of sorts, I assume these are the only two Xenophontic attestations? I can't find agema in a search of either Hellenica or Anabasis.

I think Agesilaos' point is that it seems the Macedonians used the word in a "technical" sense and that this use is not attested prior. Thus agema is used to denote, late in Alexander's reign, the king's cavalry guard the Ile basilikoi. The new term (agema) for this guard cavalry troop continued in use after his death. The word is also clearly used of the corresponding king's foot-guard troops of the hypaspists - a mirror of the Ile basilikoi and hetairoi; the agema and the hypaspists.

I can't see that Xenophon is using the word agema in anything like that sense in both attestations. Nor do I think it is used to denote the "leading unit" in any strict sense. In both passages he uses several words to denote what is translated as "leader". At 11.9 he writes "True, the leader (arkhōn) is then on the left..." going on to say "If, however, it seems better for any reason that the leader (hēgemona) should be on the right wing, the left wing wheels, and the army counter-marches by ranks until the leader (agēma is on the right". The words arkhon, hegemon and agema are used interchangeably for what is translated as "leader". Confirmation of this comes in the second instance. Here Xenophon says "When the King leads (hēgētai), provided that no enemy appears..." and later "But if ever they think there will be fighting, he takes the lead (labōn to agēma) of the first regiment (tēs prōtēs moras). Here labon to agema is "takes the lead" and, crucially, tes ptotes moras refers to the first or lead regiment. Agema is not used to indicate the first or select regiment to my view. That comes under the Macedonians who seem to have accorded it its "technical" rather than general meaning.

[Xenophon]

My apologies for the incorrect reference, which as your quote of me implies, was taken from Luke's article. Diodorus refers to "the three thousand Macedonian Silver shields" at XVIII.58.1 (rather than XVIII.54.1), and I suspect that a typo crept into Luke's article here. The other references, as you say, are at XVIII.59.3 - "about 3,000 in number" and XIX.28.1, where the Loeb has "more than 3,000", as well as XIX.30.6 where Diodorus has "only 3,000" of them present at Parataikene. I don't think the discrepancy between texts at XIX.28.1 need concern us much, for whether we read "more than 3,000" or "not more than 3,000", it is clear, as you point out, that the number is approximately 3,000.

The question then arises as to whether this is ALL the original Macedonian Argyraspides/former Hypaspists (leaving aside at least one Persian chiliarchy for the moment). Arrian VII.12.1 tells us that those Macedonians returning west - some 10,000 in total - were those "too old for service, or in any way unfit...." which clearly points to some at least were retained with Alexander, though a distinct minority, given the likely average age of these veterans ( which is highly unlikely to be the exaggerated figures of the sources). Since many of the original Agema would be among those returning, it seems likely that those remaining from all the chiliarchies were combined into a new Agema, and likely still present at Alexander's death. As you say, we can't know their number with any certainty. A reasonable guess might be one chiliarchy or so. It would be unthinkable for Alexander to have sent away ALL his most faithful bodyguards.
Significantly perhaps, there is no mention of an Agema with the subsequent career of the 3,000 or so who returned West.

In addition, as Luke points out at Arrian V.23.7 Alexander gives Ptolemy a blocking force consisting of ".. three chilarchies of Hypaspists, all the Agrianes and a taxis of archers." The implication is clearly that there were more than three chiliarchies ( otherwise why not just say "the Hypaspists" if all were with Ptolemy ?), and certainly one would expect the Agema at least to be retained with Alexander on this occasion.

Whether this ( probably) reconstituted Agema continued to serve "the Kings" and their Regent is uncertain, if only because we don't hear of them again ( if I recall correctly).

We are therefore in broad agreement that ultimately there were likely 4,000 or so Macedonian Hypaspists (including the Agema) in Alexander's army, organised into 'chiliarchies' of 1,000 ( not to mention at least one additional Persian 'chiliarchy, as you refer to )

[Paralus]

We are therefore in broad agreement that ultimately there were likely 4,000 or so Macedonian Hypaspists (including the Agema) in Alexander's army, organised into 'chiliarchies' of 1,000 ( not to mention at least one additional Persian 'chiliarchy, as you refer to )

Broad agreement yes, but...

The question then arises as to whether this is ALL the original Macedonian Argyraspides/former Hypaspists (leaving aside at least one Persian chiliarchy for the moment). Arrian VII.12.1 tells us that those Macedonians returning west - some 10,000 in total - were those "too old for service, or in any way unfit...." which clearly points to some at least were retained with Alexander, though a distinct minority, given the likely average age of these veterans ( which is highly unlikely to be the exaggerated figures of the sources).

The question of whether or not the hypaspist corps was retired at Opis and sent west is largely unanswerable. This has not stopped many a scholar from dogmatically stating that they were so retired. The problem then becomes explaining their active part in the Egypt invasion of 320. Heckel proposes that they were sent home but left in Cilicia to guard the treasury. This necessitates linguistic arguments over Diodorus 18.16.4 where the simplest explanation is that Craterus took his veterans to Macedonia and they comprised 6,000 foot from Alexander's initial expeditionary force and 4,000 from those who were added to that force later. If it were me, I'd have taken the Argyraspids with me to Thessaly and left others if indeed he did so. In any case, why not just leave the single unit? Why the need to add 1,000 nondescripts with them?

Those who claim the hypaspists were retired at Opis due to old age making them no longer fit for duty have a difficult time reconciling their latter campaigning with that image. Mind you, it might also be remembered that Craterus' "old crocks" retired directly into battle against the Greeks and then many came back to Asia in the invasion of 320. Also, the hypaspists are described as doing their jobs quite well during the "revolt" at Opis. Here they perform their duties as guards or "police". I do not think that Perdiccas found the Argyraspids playing dice in Cilicia. Macedonians were in short supply (only 3,800 foot and cavalry delegated to Pithon to deal with the 20,000 odd Greeks of the upper satrapies) and I doubt anyone left a unit of the calibre of the argyraspids to sit on their sarissae and mind the coin.

There is no attestation that the Argyrapsids were sent home from Opis. The only link is Antigenes who is listed as returning. There is argument as to whether Antigenes commanded the Argyraspids prior to leaving Triparadeisos, though I think there's little doubt that he commanded them on the Egyptian campaign (Neoptolemus was in Armenia post 322 at the latest and sent north with Eumenes). If the Argyraspids are returning with Craterus because Antigenes is with him then are they are returning from India with Craterus who takes Antigenes' "battalion" (along with others)? If he commands the Argyraspids at this time then the answer must be yes. Yet, after Craterus' departure, Alexander is found twice taking "half the hypaspists" with him (Arr. 6.21.3; 22.1). Antigenes probably did not command the Argyraspids at this point (where for art thou Neoptolemus?) and, unless Alexander formed an entirely new hypaspists corps about which we are not informed, they were not sent home (as the hypaspists are still with the king). Just what Antigenes' "battalion" was I can't guess. Like many things, this is not as clear as one might like things to be.

Also, there is general agreement that the unit (of 3,000) that Antigenes lead from Triparadeisos was the Argyraspids (Arrian terms him their commander prior to if not then). These troops were the main agitators and those who came within a inch of lynching Antipater (see Justin above). The consensus is that this was over pay and the encampment, across the river, of Craterus' well rewarded veterans (in Antipater's army) can only have heightened their anger. Whilst human nature is capable of much self serving greed, one might wonder at the Argyraspids clamouring for money along with the hard done by royal army had they initially been part of Craterus' retirees. Not only had they received their pay but Alexander had given each a talent to go home with. The rest of the royal army would be well aware of this I'd think.

Still nothing much is for certain here.

Since many of the original Agema would be among those returning, it seems likely that those remaining from all the chiliarchies were combined into a new Agema, and likely still present at Alexander's death. As you say, we can't know their number with any certainty. A reasonable guess might be one chiliarchy or so. It would be unthinkable for Alexander to have sent away ALL his most faithful bodyguards.

Significantly perhaps, there is no mention of an Agema with the subsequent career of the 3,000 or so who returned West.

No, there is no attested agema amongst the troops sent home. Further there is never a mention of an agema when it comes to the Argyraspids - they are simply Alexander's ex "regular" hypaspists.

I do not think that many of the "original agema" went home. These were (originally) the young (18 or so years old) sons of the nobility, ex pages. Ten years down the track the survivors will have progressed on (think Peucestas) and been replaced by others such as Lysimachus' younger brother, Philip (Curt. 8.2.35-36). The hypaspists were selected from amonst all the Macedonians; the agema was the purview of the young nobility progressing from the paides basilikoi. Their numbers can only be guessed at although, if Antipater is any guide, the Macedonian nobility produced sons on a regular basis! That being given, it is most unlikely that a new agema was ever formed by combining regular hypaspists with the nobility.

In addition, as Luke points out at Arrian V.23.7 Alexander gives Ptolemy a blocking force consisting of ".. three chilarchies of Hypaspists, all the Agrianes and a taxis of archers." The implication is clearly that there were more than three chiliarchies ( otherwise why not just say "the Hypaspists" if all were with Ptolemy ?), and certainly one would expect the Agema at least to be retained with Alexander on this occasion.

Whether this ( probably) reconstituted Agema continued to serve "the Kings" and their Regent is uncertain, if only because we don't hear of them again ( if I recall correctly).

The agema would always be with the King when he is on foot. Obviously we are not informed of every instance but there are plenty of notices where Alexander leads the agema and the hypaspists. Two of the most obvious being Arrian 1.1.11 and 4.30.3. I don't think there's any doubt that the agema will have continued on with the kings. Their place in the battle line will not have changed only that they are protecting the epemilites. Their job at court also remained as did "the seven".

On the numbers, I think it is reasonably clear that the regular hypaspists numbered 3,000 - certainly for the second half of the campign. These were three chiliarchies and the agema was a separate troop. Thus in the passage you cite Alexander gives Ptolemy the full compliment of the regular hypaspists (Argyraspids) and he will have kept the agema to himself. To this might be added 4.28.10 and 4.30.6. In the first Ptolemy receives a third of the hupaspistōn tōn basilikōn or "royal hypaspists". This might refer to the agema but almost certainly refers to the regular hypaspists and a third will be a chiliarchy. The second provides confirmation, of a sort, in that Antiochus, a khiliarkhous tōn hupaspistōn or chiliarch of the hypaspists, has command of his own chiliarchy as well as two others. Now the others may be any regiment but the context clearly indicates hypaspists and, in any case, if Antiochus is a chiliarch, he commands a thousand of the hypaspists. Again, the regular hypaspists are 3,000 and Alexander, again, will have kept his foot guard with him.

I imagine we've well and truly answered Robbie's question... not...

[agesilaos]

I just wanted to say I am not in agreement, though I agree more with Paralus than Xenophon, but am not posting til my whole argument is marshalled. I have read the article Xenophon linked to (Ihad read it before and disagreed with it but now I have to show my workings, and then have them rubbished ).

[Paralus]

I just wanted to say I am not in agreement, though I agree more with Paralus than Xenophon, but am not posting til my whole argument is marshalled.

I am so happy to read it. I should clearly state that I agree with Heckel's notion that the agema consisted of the sons of the nobility. These kids went through their "mock servitude" in a Makedonian version of the Spartan agoge.They are the 18-29 year olds of the Spartan system yet to be "full citizens". Young, vigorous troops, raised at court, in flower of their manhood and the foot guard of the king. And it is this that is so serious when it comes to the "conspiracy of the pages". These are the next generation of the agema of the hypaspists.

Before you marshal you argument perhaps you should (if you haven't already) read Heckel's "Somatophylakia": A Macedonian "Cursus Honorum" Phoenix, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 279-294 which I have. He expands on this in "Marshals" which I too have should you want (the chapter scanned that is).