A Hephaistion Quiz!

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote: It is impossible that he meant anything by this other than that Pausanias was an official and personal bodyguard of the king. He cannot have meant that Pausanias was an officer in the hypaspists...
It is entirely possible that Diodorus has confused the technical terms here. For modern historians it is par for the course to write Diodorus off as a “clumsy copyist” who displays little or no intellectual rigour in that copying. Yet, it would seem, that he never confuses terms that Arrian – a stickler for terms and patronymics, etc – has a difficult enough time with.

Plutarch (Morallia, 170E) uses the term doryphoroi or “spear-carrier” – a term occasionally applied to hypaspists and which MM Markle (particularly) has pointed to in arguing for their normal armouring being that of the hoplite. Diodorus uses it himself at 94.3:
Every seat in the theatre was taken when Philip appeared wearing a white cloak, and by his express orders his bodyguard held away from him…
If we accept your absolute declaration that any other reading here is “impossible” then we must conclude that Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus are members of the Seven – for Diodorus states it at 94.4:
Immediately one group of the bodyguards hurried to the body of the king while the rest poured out in pursuit of the assassin; among these last were Leonnatus and Perdiccas and Attalus.
Odd that Alexander, years afterward, felt the need to promote Leonnatus and Perdiccas, the noted battalion commander, to the position - again.

Perhaps it was like a renewing of wedding vows? Perhaps another, not quite so impossible, explanation is that Diodorus – as Arrian on occasion – has confused the technical terminology.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Another - not so impossible - thought is that if Pausanias had been young enough to be involved in a homo-erotic relationship with the king at some time in the recent past, then it is likely he was one of the basilikoi paides - the "royal boys" or pages. These, as I have related, were loosely referred to on occasion as somatophlylakes.

It is not impossible that, by way of making his guesture, Philip advanced him to the rank of royal hypaspist. That is, he advanced him among the collective ranks of kings' guards: the Pages, the royal hypaspists and the 'Seven".

Makes more sense , in my opinion, than the rank abuse of one of the most important seven men - next to the king - in the entire kingdom by muletteers of Attalus.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Paralus wrote:If we accept your absolute declaration that any other reading here is “impossible” then we must conclude that Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus are members of the Seven
Not at all. The usual interpretation is that these men were Alexander's bodyguards, rather than members of the Seven.
Paralus wrote:If Pausanias had been young enough to be involved in a homo-erotic relationship with the king at some time in the recent past, then it is likely he was one of the basilikoi paides - the "royal boys" or pages. These, as I have related, were loosely referred to on occasion as somatophlylakes. It is not impossible that, by way of making his guesture, Philip advanced him to the rank of royal hypaspist. That is, he advanced him among the collective ranks of kings' guards: the Pages, the royal hypaspists and the 'Seven".
This is a scenario of great intricacy in an attempt to avoid the obvious interpretation of the facts and rescue Pausanias' putative service in the hypaspists from the oblivion it deserves. It particularly offends against Occam's razor and it requires that Diodorus misled his readers.

The death of the second Pausanias may have happened 8 years before Philip's assassination. It looks as though his promotion within the Bodyguard was initially successful in mollifying Pausanias, but he could not stomach the rise of Attalus associated with Philip's wedding.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:
Paralus wrote:If we accept your absolute declaration that any other reading here is “impossible” then we must conclude that Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus are members of the Seven
Not at all. The usual interpretation is that these men were Alexander's bodyguards, rather than members of the Seven.
And indeed they were: when Alexander was king. That is a nice twist of Diodorus’ words to suit your proposition. His words (94.3-4) are clear:
When Philip directed his attending friends to precede him into the theatre, while the bodyguards were standing somewhat apart, he saw that the king was left alone, rushed at him, pierced him through his ribs, and stretched him out dead; then ran for the gates and the horses which he had prepared for his flight. Immediately one group of the bodyguards hurried to the body of the king while the rest poured out in pursuit of the assassin; among these last were Leonnatus and Perdiccas and Attalus.
Diodorus refers to the one group of “the bodyguards”. A portion hurried out and “the rest” (of “the” bodyguards) who followed. He is not referring to separate discrete corps for the two individuals. These men were patently “bodyguards” of the King not of Alexander. That they were hypaspists is a quite reasonable explanation of Diodorus’ use of doryphoroi (93.1 and 94.3) in describing them as well as his (and Arrian’s) confusion of somatophylake with page and royal hypaspist. All these groups were, after all, “bodyguards” of the king.
Taphoi wrote:
Paralus wrote:What, then, to make of Diodorus, 17.65.1?
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...
Except that he is definitively referring to the pages as somatophylakes. What it shows is a confusion of the technical terms both by Arrian and Diodorus. Or Diodorus being “clumsy”, at best, with his terminology. Nothing to do with deliberately misleading anyone.

In Philip’s day these terms may have been somewhat different thus adding to the confusion. There is a devolving consensus, for example, that it was Alexander who applied the term pezhetairoi to the infantry at large and hypaspists to what were the “Foot Guards” or Companions under Philip. This too, in my opinion, makes more sense of that celebrated fragment (FGrHist 72 F 4) than arguing for Alexander I or II as the Alexander mentioned.

That may not have been the only alteration in nomenclature.
Last edited by Paralus on Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:
NGL Hammond in [i]Philip of Macedon[/i] wrote:Hoping to appease Pausanias, Philip gave him considerable gifts and honourable promotion among the group of seven Bodyguards. But Pausanias was not appeased. He planned to kill Philip.
Diodorus 16.93.3 introduces Pausanias as a "bodyguard of the king". It is impossible that he meant anything by this other than that Pausanias was an official and personal bodyguard of the king.
Taphoi wrote:
Paralus wrote:If we accept your absolute declaration that any other reading here is “impossible” then we must conclude that Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus are members of the Seven
Not at all. The usual interpretation is that these men were Alexander's bodyguards, rather than members of the Seven.
As you have quoted Hammond’s line of argument in refutation of the “scenario of great intricacy” – your hyperbole – I believe we should have a somewhat fuller citation.

Hammond, Philip of Macedon, in his rendering of Diodorus wrote:
When the Procession had departed, Philip who was still outside sent his Friends in to take their seats and after them the Guardsmen to take position at the edge of the orchestra…Meanwhile, the seven Bodyguards fanned out at some distance from him. Suddenly one of them, Pausanias, sprang forward, stabbed the king and fled down the parodros. Three Bodyguards ran to the king’s side. Three others – Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus – chased Pausanias, who would have reached horses waiting at the gate…
Hammond appears not to be among those attached your “usual interpretation”. Odd that you did not include this when it was only a matter of lines on from your quoted passage. Perhaps that may be because it might have shown your opinion a glimpse of oblivion?

I feel it's a bit disloyal for you publicly to attack the views of your expert – Hammond – quoted in defence of your opinion in this shameless fashion Taphoi. But I guess it's between you and your conscience.

If, as I say, if you decide that Pausanias is one of the seven then so too are the other three; somehow re-appointed to their positions by Alexander several years after the fact.
Last edited by Paralus on Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
ruthaki
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:31 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada

Hepahestion quiz

Post by ruthaki »

I got them all correct up to #7 then I couldn't get the darn thing to move ahead!
User avatar
Sandra
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 4:44 am
Location: Latvia

Post by Sandra »

Got 15/15 :)
Oh, Hephaistion, although he is not my favourite character:)
As concerns somatophylakos- could there be any place where at least some of Philip's bodyguards has been mentioned? Ok, by exception of Pausanias- although I doubt him- after reading previous posts:)
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Sandra wrote:Got 15/15 :)
Oh, Hephaistion, although he is not my favourite character:)
As concerns somatophylakos- could there be any place where at least some of Philip's bodyguards has been mentioned? Ok, by exception of Pausanias- although I doubt him- after reading previous posts:)
Who is your favourite character, then? (I'm guessing you mean after Alexander.)
I'd put Hephaistion favourite after Alexander - maybe even equal first!
It'd be interesting to hear whom other people like best.
Fiona
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Fave character

Post by karen »

As long as "favourite" doesn't have to mean "most likable" -- Olympias, hands down. Especially if it's Alexander Revisited we're talking about, because she was more fleshed out. Even though she had to fight through the handicaps of being too young, having a lot of poorly-written lines and being required to deliver them in an accent like Natasha in "Rocky and Bullwinkle," Angelina Jolie was terrific as Alexander's super-intense mom. Favourite moment: when she whacks him across the face and says "You're a king! Act like one!"

In fact, come to think of it.... she's the only character in the whole movie who really seems strong enough to be an ancient Makedonian monarch. Nerves of steel, and she never makes even the slightest slip.

Most likable imo was Krateros, for all he only got one little scene, giving a speech that in reality was given by Koinos. Followed closely by Bagoas, but maybe that's because I enjoyed looking at him so much...

Warmly,
Karen
Last edited by karen on Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

How about Leonnatos?

He seems to have been bold and larger-than-life--unafraid to laugh at his king's attempts at proskynesis, bringing with him caravans' worth sand/dust for wrestling...

He certainly earned his office of Somatophylax. When Alexander was fighting for his life, alone, inside the citadel of the Mallians, he showed great courage by jumping in to save his king. Was it his duty to do so? Sure. But there are many instances in history where men in similar positions stood back.
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

I thought we were talking about characters from the movie... :oops:
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Sandra wrote: As concerns somatophylakos- could there be any place where at least some of Philip's bodyguards has been mentioned? Ok, by exception of Pausanias- although I doubt him- after reading previous posts:)
A question that is most difficult to answer. We do not have the literary corpus for Philip that we have for Alexander and so that type of “intimate” detail is lacking in many respects.

When Alexander succeeded his father it is a reasonable guess that he will likely have made some changes. Further those changes – aside from the removal of immediate enemies – given the nature of the succession and the need to provide stability will not have been sweeping in nature.

Part of ensuring the continuation of both current loyalties to the monarchy and stability will have been the adoption and affirmation of the organs of state under Philip. Whilst that does not automatically mean that Philip’s somatophylakes will have transferred to the new king it is to be expected that these rather important seven “adjutants” will have done so.

Though we can not be certain it would then seem logical that Alexander inherited several from his father. Likely candidates may well be: Balacrus, Arybbas, Lysimachus, Demetrios and Ptolemy (not Soter). All these men, aside from Lysimachus, were replaced at some stage by Alexander due to satrapal postings or death.

It is also likely that at this time Alexander reorganised the army nomenclature by applying the title “foot companions” (pezhetairoi) to the taxeis of the Macedonian phalanx and renaming the original foot guards – who were originally named so – hypaspists. I would think it unlikely that Alexander will have made any wholesale changes to units such as that which came to be called the hypaspist corps. I hold a similar view with respect to the “seven”. Suggestions that Alexander will have created his own corps of “foot guards” or somatophylakes on his accession carry the danger of serious upheaval and disaffection at just the time the new king could well do without it.

The extension of the term pezhetiroi to the Macedonian infantry at large is indicative of the perspicacity of the young king looking to weld support to his kingship. It also has strong reflections in his planned reorganisation of the army and “companionate” at the close of his reign.
Last edited by Paralus on Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

karen wrote:I thought we were talking about characters from the movie... :oops:
That could just as easily have been my mistake.

I'm not going to lie to you; it's difficult for me to find a "favorite" character from the movie. I have to find said characters sympathetic, if not likeable, to begin with. In that sense, Phillip (didn't Kilmer do a terrific job with him?) appeals somewhat--I found his cave scene with young Alexander moving. In those moments, I felt as if Stone did a very good job of almost absolving him of the flaws and crimes he commits on screen--the evidence of what he likely had gone through as a young man giving reason (if not excuse) for his own conduct.

I also liked Cleitus, played well, IMHO, by Gary Stretch.

Hephaistion was, I hate to say, disappointing to me. Off of the battlefield depictions, I found Leto less assertive than I thought his character should have been... and more melodramatic than dramatic. Perhaps Hephaestion was not a "great" commander (but then, how often is the quality of the various commanders qualified), and perhaps he didn't enjoy the respect of his fellows... But events like his willingness to cross blades with Craterus (IIRC) hint to me that the historical counterpart carried himself somewhat more strongly.
User avatar
Sandra
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 4:44 am
Location: Latvia

Characters

Post by Sandra »

I meant from history:) And there my fav is Philotas (after Alexander, of course)- well, no doubt, I wouldn't be happy to know him by person (although- who knows:)?) Last- I have done my course project on him (i'm doing my MA in history).
As concerns movie- I'm sure Stone has not chosen best actors:( I could agree with Philip (Kilmer), but others...
User avatar
Sandra
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 4:44 am
Location: Latvia

Post by Sandra »

Paralus wrote:
Sandra wrote: As concerns somatophylakos- could there be any place where at least some of Philip's bodyguards has been mentioned? Ok, by exception of Pausanias- although I doubt him- after reading previous posts:)
A question that is most difficult to answer. We do not have the literary corpus for Philip that we have for Alexander and so that type of “intimate” detail is lacking in many respects.

When Alexander succeeded his father it is a reasonable guess that he will likely have made some changes. Further those changes – aside from the removal of immediate enemies – given the nature of the succession and the need to provide stability will not have been sweeping in nature.

Part of ensuring the continuation of both current loyalties to the monarchy and stability will have been the adoption and affirmation of the organs of state under Philip. Whilst that does not automatically mean that Philip’s somatophylakes will have transferred to the new king it is to be expected that these rather important seven “adjutants” will have done so.

Though we can not be certain it would then seem logical that Alexander inherited several from his father. Likely candidates may well be: Balacrus, Arybbas, Lysimachus, Demetrios and Ptolemy (not Soter). All these men, aside from Lysimachus, were replaced at some stage by Alexander due to satrapal postings or death.

It is also likely that at this time Alexander reorganised the army nomenclature by applying the title “foot companions” (pezhetairoi) to the taxeis of the Macedonian phalanx and renaming the original foot guards – who were originally named so – hypaspists. I would think it unlikely that Alexander will have made any wholesale changes to units such as that which came to be called the hypaspist corps. I hold a similar view with respect to the “seven”. Suggestions that Alexander will have created his own corps of “foot guards” or somatophylakes on his accession carry the danger of serious upheaval and disaffection at just the time the new king could well do without it.

The extension of the term pezhetiroi to the Macedonian infantry at large is indicative of the perspicacity of the young king looking to weld support to his kingship. It also has strong reflections in his planned reorganisation of the army and “companionate” at the close of his reign.
Thanks for answer... But this gave me just more questions, not answers... mmm, maybe this is worth for doing some deeper research?
Post Reply