Hoi Basilikoi Paides

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

I am afraid this does not wash at all; Arrian frequently writes ‘the agema and the hypaspists’ (I 1 xi , I 8 iii, II 8 iii, VII 7 i) or even ‘the agema and the other hypaspists’ (III 11 ix, V 13 iv) given that all the examples of ‘somatophylakes and hypaspists’ occur in analogous combat situations and are therefore analogous constructions where ‘somatophylakes’ is used as a synonym for ‘agema’; there is no reason to posit a separate guard formation. Aristoboulos and Ptolemy do use different terms for the same thing, taxis/phalanx for the individual battalions for instance, prodromoi/sarssophoroi for another.

Oh dear, I guess I am not expressing myself very well – and you have rather jumped the gun a little, for I intended to post more, as I said in my last post.....I am trying not to post in “chunks” that are too large to digest, or respond to....pretty well all scholars agree that the 'Agema' was the leading ( or senior) sub-unit of the 'Hypaspist's, whose role was that of foot guard on the battlefield and elsewhere. They are a ‘regular army unit’, much like the Guards Division in the modern British Army. But the point of my digression is that ‘somatophylakes’ and ‘agema’ are NOT synonyms. This is pure assumption, unsupported by any evidence.

Remember Sir Francis Bacon ? Here is a perfect instance, to the point where translators alter the text to conform to the assumption! The confusion arises because on the battlefield the Hypaspists, and the Agema in particular are ‘foot guards’ whose role, should the occasion arise, is to protect the King but, as I tried to point out, there is a difference between the ‘Foot Guards’ and a ‘Bodyguard’, whose main role is to closely protect the King in a personal sense off the battlefield, 24/7, even if their functions overlap to a degree. Is there evidence that they are separate units ? Yes !

The ‘somatophylakes’ are a mounted body at Pelion (Arrian I.6), who ride with the Companion cavalry.(hence not infantry Hypaspists). On the other three occasions that we hear of them in action in Arrian ( III.17, IV.3 and IV.30, taking part in a raid, sneakily capturing the way into a city, and scaling Aornus respectively) they are accompanied by Hyspaspists, but not part of them; “Somatophylakes and the Hypaspists...”etc - and often others too, and all 'special task forces', not in pitched battle. Nor am I positing a ‘new’ guard unit, as we shall see. There is another piece of evidence for the ‘somatophylakes’ not being part of the Hypaspists, namely Diodorus XVII.61 at Gaugemala where Hephaistion “..commanded the somatophylakes/bodyguards” and was wounded. These bodyguards are not the Hypaspists, for at this time they were commanded by Nicanor, son of Parmenion, and must be a separate unit .(Arrian III.21.8 )

As to multiple names for units, yes, those existed then as now – often a unit will have an ‘official’ name and a nickname – a modern example is the U.S. Marines a.k.a leathernecks, and the Prodromoi/scouts were also nicknamed sarissaphoroi/lancers. But taxis/phalanx is not an example. ‘Taxis’ in a Macedonian context is best translated ‘brigade’, about 2,000 strong, [Yes, I know, we have to resume that discussion at some point! ] made up of ‘battalions/syntagma’ or ‘speira’ 256 strong. ‘Phalanx’ is best literally translated as ‘roller’ and refers to the main infantry battle line, which could be one or many ‘taxeis’. But the ‘Somatophylakes’ are clearly not the ‘Agema’ – and we need look no further than the assassination of Philip described at Diodorus XVI.93-94, where the ‘S’ are 20 year olds, not full ‘armed guards’ etc. To be in the regular military, such as the Hypaspists, one had to be an adult i.e. over 21.

Were there to be then they are clearly a full military unit with combat functions and not a police force, which undermines the distinction you wish to impose on the Diodoros passage (XVI 93-4). There, the words are used by Diodoros’ Greek source for variety and should not be taken in any technical sense. In fact the description does not just oscillate between ‘doryphoroi’ and somatophylakes’ but includes the ‘spear-bearing Guards’ – doryphoroi phylakes and ‘those friends around him’ - philous keleusantos .

Again, I am perhaps not clear. I was not suggesting that the “S.” (getting tired of typing the word in full ) were ‘police’, that is to take the analogy too far. Merely that there is a difference between a ‘Military Guard ‘ and close ‘bodyguards’, the latter of whom attend their King/Queen much more closely than a ‘Military Unit’ could. These 'bodyguards' are co-incidently provided by the Police in Britain, and the Secret Service in the U.S. We might describe these as quasi or para-military units. The point being that a 'Military Guard' and a 'bodyguard' can be different. Your mention of 'Doryphoroi phylakes' illustrates this nicely, for 'doryphoroi' has a military/soldier/hoplite connotation, and 'phylakes/guards is not the same as 'somatophylakes/bodyguards' ( just as in English ). Clearly the 'doryphoroi phylakes/military guards' are the Hypaspists. Nor does usage of the terms 'oscillate', but rather they are used consistently.
When I have some more time, I shall check to see if Curtius' equivalent latin terms - 'armigeri' and 'corpores custodi' are also used consistently....

It is clear from the narrative that no one is around Philip when Pausanias dashes up to strike; and that is the point of a concealed drawn weapon, the ability to strike without drawing the blade gives the assassin a great advantage in surprise, maybe even more so if his sword is plainly sheathed by his side!

Fair point, that is a possibility – but one which ignores Philip’s attested purpose of NOT wishing to be attended by fully armed guards, but to keep these at a distance. Pausanias must have been within 5 metres or so, for if he ran at Philip from much further, someone would have shouted a warning to the King. That is why he is a ‘somatophylax’, not a ‘doryphoroi’. (Plutarch notwithstanding.)

As a picky point, Aelian calls the weapon a ‘xiphos’ but both ‘xiphos’ and ‘gladius’ are catch all words for swords, what we would simply call a ‘gladius’ would be a ‘gladius hispaniensis’ or Spanish sword to a technically minded Roman. Both represent a later and diverse tradition, Aelian explicitly states that the account differ, though it is the significance of the chariot warning that interests him; and Justin because he uses gladius rather than pugio (a dagger) for the weapon, by implication his source used ‘xiphos’ as in Aelian.

Agreed.

Diodoros was only writing 100 years before Plutarch and their sources were probably both contemporary Greeks, Diodoros almost certainly used Theopompos’ ‘Philippic History’, Plutarch could have used any Greek source (the Macedonian, Marsyas seems ruled out by the general term ‘doryphoros’ rather than a specifically Macedonian term; ‘doryphoroi’ do not figure in Arrian’s narrative which follows Macedonian PT/Ar sources.)

Agreed.

Having brought in Diodorus, perhaps it might be as well to refer to his other references to ‘somatophylakes’. Apart from Philip’s assassination at XVI.93-94, and the reference to Hephaistion as their commander at XVII.61, there is a reference to Alexander ordering ‘S’ to grab an Indian who is mutilating a fighting dog at XVII.92. There are three other references to “S.” after Alexander’s death at XVIII.2; XVIII.87; and XIX.14, but these are all references to ‘the Seven’.

Essentially we are agreed about the Paides – that they were the sons of the leading nobles who entered service around puberty/age 15 ( other Macedonians began military training at this age). You believe they ‘graduated’ to manhood at 18 ( no real evidence for this) while to me the evidence (epigraphic and other) points to 21 being the age of becoming an adult male, and entering the Military. You believe they then went into a ‘new’ unit of young nobles at 18, and in seeking to identify such a unit, proposed 'hoi hetairoi amph 'auton' and it's many variations; while to me ( and Paralus) this expression does not sound like a unit title but rather a description of Alexander’s immediate entourage on any one particular occasion. We both agree that the 19-20 year-old young nobles (epheboi) attended and guarded the King both by day and by night (Curtius VIII.6.18).

My hypothesis is that in fact this group of 100 or so, whether technically still within the ‘paides’, as I believe, or without in a ‘new’ unit as you believe ( even though non-adult Greeks did not generally serve in the Military) were called the ‘Somatophylakes’. This hypothesis is consistent with all the known data that I am aware of.

Thus we have the term used in a titular sense for “the Seven”, those closest to Alexander, and also for the actual ‘bodyguards’, the young noblemen 19-20 years old whom I believe were a sub-group of the ‘paides.’(just as the 'Agema' were a sub-group within the 'Hypaspists')
It is generally agreed that the references to 'somatophylakes' in Arrian are not just to the "Seven", therefore there is another group called by this title.( e.g. IV.30 where A. takes 700 somatophylakes and Hypaspists)

At 21 they became ‘adults’, and were dispersed/graduated into the regular Army, probably mostly to 'Hetairoi' or 'Hypaspists', especially the ‘Ile Basilikoi’ or the ‘Agema’, but some perhaps to their ‘family and tribal’ units as Alexias suggested.....

[Paralus]

I'm afraid I've got to agree with Agesilaos. This seems an over-ingenious construction of the evidence to postulate yet another group of somatophylakes. The argument relies not only on fact that the terms used by Arrian (and Diodorus!) are used technically but further that they are consistently so. As Agesilaos has pointed out, this isn't so. Diodorus has been described as one of those "cheap prose writers" too afraid to use the same word twice in the one paragraph (can't quite remember who wrote that). The piades basilikoi, agema and the somatophylakes all, as part of their 'duty', acted as bodyguards of the king. This is why they are all so described as somatophylakes in the sources. This was, and remains, the simplest view of the word's usage.

One might imagine that real evidence for this theory would be found should Arrian note Alexander taking the somatophylakes, the agema and the hypaspists. This would clearly illustrate the three distinct units. Unfortunately such an attestation never occurs in his text. You'd have to ask why? The simple answer is that there were not three such distinct units hence the lack of attestation. Positing a differentiation based on battlefield units and bodyguard units (not "a regular army unit') is most unconvincing - made the more so by the fact that Diodorus mentions Hephaestion's wounding leading these supposed "bodyguards" at Gaugamela.

What we do have is Alexander leading/taking the agema, the hypaspists an other troops or leading/taking the somatophylakes, the hypaspists and others. Hence at 1.1.11 Alexander "collected the agema, the hypaspists and the Agrianians" (ditto 1.8.3). The agema is noted in the battle lines of Guagamela and Issos as you noted. After book III it is used less but not ignored. It is over these books that Arrian refers to Alexander leading the somatophylakes and the hypaspists (the somatophylakes at Pelion are, as I've written on the other thread, the "seven" - it is cavalry that is being discussed). If the contention is that these somatophylakes are not a "regular army unit" but a bodyguard unit made up of 100 young (under 21) nobles who are a subgroup of the paides, it is odd they are not mentioned when we might expect them to be. For example, at 5.2.5, Alexander is seized with a desire to see Mt Meros where the Nysians told him memorials to Dionysus were to be found. This is not a combat situation and Alexander went "with the cavalry companions and the infantry agema" ( tois hetairois tois hippeusi kai tō pezikō agēmati). Where for art thou bodyguards? This is the perfect instance in which such a unit would be taken yet it is conspicuously absent. Alexander has, though, taken these somatophylakes; he simply refers to them as the agema as I, and Agesilaos, would argue. It rather begs the question when Arrian only mentions this "subgroup of paides" - a group too young to be "regular army" and "whose main role is to closely protect the King in a personal sense off the battlefield" - in combat operations but not in a bodyguard context (off the field).

Then there is Ptolemy son of Seleukos who is described as sōmatophulakōn tōn basilikōn. This Ptolemy is not a member of the "seven" as I've related before (unless his sabbatical resulted in a demotion!) and is clearly something else. The logical conclusion is that he is the same as those at Philip II's murder and the other references in Arrian to such somatophylakes. I don't find it at all plausible that he was placed in command of these troops if he is a member of a group too young to be in the regular army.

As I've written on the other thread, Arrian uses somatophylakes and agema interchageably. It is far more logical that Hephaestion commanded the agema at Gaugamela than a group of 100 paides. The agema was the king's personal foot guard and so we see him leading it on several occasions (above) hence they are termed such occasionally. As well, Alexander was bent on introducing Persian troops into the Macedonian units at the end of his reign. He even went as far as to draft Persian nobility into his guard units. Nowhere is a supposed subgroup of somatophylakes mentioned in the extensive list. What is mentioned is Persians drafted into the agemas (7.29.4). It is far more likely that Arrian refers to the same group by the different terms.

[agesilaos]

I 14 ii-iii

ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις ἡ Περδίκκου τοῦ Ὀρόντου φάλαγξ: ἐπὶ δὲ ἡ Κοίνου τοῦ Πολεμοκράτους: [ἐπὶ δὲ ἡ Κρατεροῦ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου:] ἐπὶ δὲ ἡ Ἀμύντου τοῦ Ἀνδρομένους: ἐπὶ δὲ ὧν Φίλιππος ὁ Ἀμύντου ἦρχε. [3] τοῦ δὲ εὐωνύμου πρῶτοι μὲν οἱ Θετταλοὶ ἱππεῖς ἐτάχθησαν, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Κάλας ὁ Ἁρπάλου: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις οἱ ξύμμαχοι ἱππεῖς, ὧν ἦρχε Φίλιππος ὁ Μενελάου: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις οἱ Θρᾷκες, ὧν ἦρχεν Ἀγάθων: ἐχόμενοι δὲ τούτων πεζοὶ ἥ τε Κρατεροῦ φάλαγξ καὶ ἡ Μελεάγρου καὶ ἡ Φιλίππου ἔστε ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον τῆς ξυμπάσης τάξεως.

V 21 v

[5] ἐνταῦθα Ἡφαιστίωνα μὲν ἐκπέμπει δοὺς αὐτῷ μέρος τῆς στρατιᾶς, πεζῶν μὲν φάλαγγας δύο, ἱππέων δὲ τήν τε αὑτοῦ καὶ τὴν Δημητρίου ἱππαρχίαν καὶ τῶν τοξοτῶν τοὺς ἡμίσεας

Thereafter, he dispatched hephaistion with a portion of the army, from the foot two phalanxes, and of the horse his own and Demetrios' hipparchies, and half the archers.

'phalanx' used for the individual units (V 20 iii, too); 'battalion' is the worst possible translation of 'taxis' (see the thread 'defining ones terms'), it is a general word and should be translated as such, the neutral 'unit' is best. I agree with Paralus above except on Pelion, but let's leave that for a future thread!

[agesilaos]

So, to what did a Pais Basilikos progress once his service was time-expired? Hammond (‘Royal Pages, Personal Pages and Boys Trained in the Macedonian Manner During the Period of the Temenid Monarchy’, Historia 39[1990]pp 261-290)posited that they joined the ranks of the Companion Cavalry, presumably because that would seem the normal path for nobles who had undergone cavalry training.

Heckel, ‘Somatophylakia: a Macedonian Cursus Honorum’ Phoenix 40 (1986) 279-294, restated and expanded in ‘The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire’ Routledge , Oxford 1992, saw no evidence for progression to the cavalry and suggested that instead they moved on to form the ‘agema’ of the Hypaspists, normally considered of chiliarchy strength and either one of three or four which formed the corps.

I suggest that they formed an elite group within the ‘agema’, which is designated in the sources by various terms.

‘hoi Hypaspistai Basilikoi’, Arrian I 8 iv, III 13 vi, IV 24 x and V 13 iv

These passages establish a tripartite structure within the Hypaspist corps, this was suggested by Berve in the early twentieth century but Tarn’s criticism has consigned the German’s views to the sidelines, despite the lack of argumentation on Tarn’s side.

Hammond, ‘Arrian’s Mentions of Infantry Guards’, AHB 11.1 (1997) 20-24, provides the very interesting fact that at I 8 iii the text of the MSS has been emended in the Loeb edition without a note or app.crit;

τὸ δὲ ἄγημά τε καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς ἔτι ἔξω κατεῖχεν

actually reads

τα δὲ ἄγημάτα καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς ἔτι ἔξω κατεῖχεν

Rather than holding back the agema and the hypaspists, Alexander holds back more than one agema and the hypaspists. Hammond proceeds to identify the agemata as the agema of the hypaspists and the ile basilikos, assaulting a breach has never been cavalry duty, however, so the likelihood is that the plural agemata, we cannot simply say two, unfortunately, were foot agema.

At I 8 iv Perdikkas’ fleeing men seek sanctuary

κατέφυγον πρὸς τὸ ἄγημα τὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς τοὺς βασιλικούς.
‘fleeing towards the agema, that of the Macedones and the Royal Hypaspists’

Hammond proceeds to deploy strong arguments against the emendation of the text at 8 iii and other commentators’ interpretations of the passages but then veers off on his own fantasy (having just described Bosworth’s ideas as such.) He explains the agema of the Makedones thus

‘When Philip II assumed power, he formed his Infantry Guard from the Macedones proper who were the only Greek-speakers of the kingdom in 359 BC. They were ‘to Makedonwn ethnos’, ‘the tribal state of Macedones’ analogous to the tribal states of Upper Macedonia (Thuc.2.99.2). A year later he incorporated those tribal states, who became by adoption ‘Macedones’. It was from these that he formed the Hypaspists and the asthetairoi of the phalanx. Thus the ‘Guard that of the Macedones’ was correctly so named in contrast to ‘The King’s Own Hypaspists’. Nor do we lack a parallel in a passage in Justin 13.3.1. For when the Macedonian infantrymen acclaimed Arrhidaeus as Alexander’s successor, they selected guards (satellites) for him from ‘their own tribe’ (ex sua tribu) ie from their own ‘ethnos’, Macedonians proper.’ P23-4.

One is tempted to just end the post here and say spot the errors but, that would hardly be academic courtesy! So, the idea that the Hypaspists were formed from the Upper Macedonians is novel; the evidence we possess seems to indicate that they were recruited from the whole kingdom regardless of ‘ethne’. Nor is there evidence to support the notion of a ‘Macedonian ethne’. Lower Macedonia was divided into ‘provinces’ too,; Arrian I 2 v

Ἡρακλείδην δὲ καὶ Σώπολιν τοὺς ἐκ Βοττιαίας τε καὶ Ἀμφιπόλεως ἱππέας
Herakleides and Sopolis with the cavalry from Bottiaia and Amphilpolis

Bottiaia being in Lower Macedonia, negating arguments that the assigning of the trierarchs to cities in Lower Macedonia but cantons in Upper Macedonia is an artefact of Niarchos’ writing not a representation of the kingdom’s organisation.

The parallel is totally fatuous as all Justin’s source means is that the ‘satellites’ were Macedonian as opposed to Persian or Greek. It does not mean that they were chosen from members of the original kingdom which Philip then expanded, half the phalanx came from the Upper kingdoms so there can be no case for a Lower Macedonian majority. And if Hammond means that they were all now Macedones there is no analogy to a separation of nomenclature.

A simple solution is not to suppose three (or more) separate Guards (two or more agemata and the Hypaspists) but rather that it is the tiered structure of the Hypaspists being described there is the agema which contains the royal Hypaspists, allowing for the plural ‘agemata’, and the rest of the Hypaspists at 8 iii and in 8 iv the troops flee to the shelter of the ‘agemata’ and the rest of the corps is not mentioned. We can deduce that the ‘agema’ was the larger group as there are references to the agema alone but the Royal Hypaspists are only mentioned alone in company with the ‘agema’ making it likely that, in the normal course of things, the ‘Royal Hypaspists fought with the ‘agema’ and are not described separately, just as the agema itself is seemingly subsumed when Arrian speaks of the Hypaspists alone.

The role of the ‘Royal Hypaspists’ at Gaugamela is controversial, with some wishing to substitute the ‘paides basilikoi’ an improbable paleographic error and given that the ‘hypaspistai basilikoi’ are attested in three other passages there seems little reason to write them out of the action here. It is equally unnecessary to suppose, as Bosworth does (Commentary I p307), that ‘Royal Hypaspists’ here means Alexander’s personal arms-bearers. Since the ‘agema and the other Hypaspists’ are accounted for in the battle-line, once again the simple solution is that the corps consisted of three tiers the Royal Hypaspists, the agema and the Hypaspists. The question then arises who exactly were the ‘Royal Hypaspists’?

[Paralus]

These can be referred to by Curtius as a 'cohorte' ( unit), and who from their age can be called 'liberi adulti'/ grown up children, or 'noblissimi iuvenes' Thus 20 year old nobles who were still not quite adult can be called 'noblissimi iuvenes'. At the same time Kallisthenes can flatter them by calling them 'vires' - for they would be soon, on turning 21. They are most probably still part of the corps of Paides, and will be until they actually turn 21, when as ‘neoi/new men’ they graduate to the armed forces proper.

I agree with Agesilaos that 'liberi adulti' most likely refers to adolescents (which might even reflect "grown up children"). You see this as the equivalent of 'noblissimi iuvenes' and, as a result, still defined as being of the paides basilikoi. The terminology (if technical terminology it is) is not consistent. There was, though, a distinction in Curtius' mind and he makes it clear in the riot in Babylon after the king's death (10.7.16-21). Perdiccas is trapped in the royal quarters with 600 men of "valour". Here he is joined by "Ptolemy and the company of the royal pages" (puerorumque regia cohors). Later, as Meleagher attempts to trap them, Perdiccas and those with him (the 600 plus the pages) "slipped away through another part of the royal quarters and fled towards the Euphrates". We are then told that "the cavalry, composed of young men from the best families, went with Perdiccas and Leonnatus in large numbers..." Young men from the best families" (qui ex nobilissimis iuvenum). Now it is hardly conceivable that the Companion cavalry is made up "in large numbers" of paides (= noblissimi iuvenes) too young to be of military age or part of a "regular army unit". Further, the paides (the puerorumque regia cohors) are a clearly separate group to the departing cavalry who are nobilissimis iuvenum.

[Paralus]

Heckel, ‘Somatophylakia: a Macedonian Cursus Honorum’ Phoenix 40 (1986) 279-294, restated and expanded in ‘The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire’ Routledge , Oxford 1992, saw no evidence for progression to the cavalry and suggested that instead they moved on to form the ‘agema’ of the Hypaspists, normally considered of chiliarchy strength and either one of three or four which formed the corps.

I'm not certain there's any real general agreement there. Heckel doesn't give a number saying, rather, that the agema was both a part of yet separate to its unit (the hypaspists) just as the ile basilikoi (later agema) was to the Companion cavalry. I tend to a pentakosiarchy. This hypaspist agema, always placed within patting remove of the horses of the ile Basilikoi (and Companion cavalry) in the battle line, had its own commander. These are the troops depicted on the Alexander sarcophagus if the depiction is historically accurate.

One is tempted to just end the post here and say spot the errors but, that would hardly be academic courtesy!

One is tempted to agree with your assessment. In his "The Various Guards of Philip II and Alexander III" (Historia, Vol. 40, No. 4 [1991], pp. 396-418) there is much more. The claim on page 406 Hammond states that Perdiccas, in 330, was "nearer to forty than thirty" and a parenthetic note refers one to page 398. Looking for elucidation one finds: "Perdiccas, commander of a phalanx brigade and also in command of the Camp Guard outside Thebes in 335 (Ptolemy being cited as his authority by Arrian,1 .8.1), was probably over 40 by 328".

Hammond, ‘Arrian’s Mentions of Infantry Guards’, AHB 11.1 (1997) 20-24, provides the very interesting fact that at I 8 iii the text of the MSS has been emended in the Loeb edition without a note or app.crit;

τὸ δὲ ἄγημά τε καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς ἔτι ἔξω κατεῖχεν

actually reads

τα δὲ ἄγημάτα καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς ἔτι ἔξω κατεῖχεν

Rather than holding back the agema and the hypaspists, Alexander holds back more than one agema and the hypaspists. Hammond proceeds to identify the agemata as the agema of the hypaspists and the ile basilikos, assaulting a breach has never been cavalry duty, however, so the likelihood is that the plural agemata, we cannot simply say two, unfortunately, were foot agema.

At I 8 iv Perdikkas’ fleeing men seek sanctuary

κατέφυγον πρὸς τὸ ἄγημα τὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς τοὺς βασιλικούς.
‘fleeing towards the agema, that of the Macedones and the Royal Hypaspists’

Yes, the emendation is of long standing. Whilst assaulting a breach is not a cavalry occupation, keeping MSS reading does not, perforce, rule out an anachronistic reference to the cavalry agema. The Thebans were using cavalry as is clearly noted at 1.8.7 and Alexander may well have used cavalry to negate pursuers from the city.

On the troops fleeing from the breach, I think that translation assumes too much. Two agemata are assumed for 1.8.4 because of "agemata" at 1.8.3. All that is mentioned in the latter sentence is the the "remainder fled to the Macedonians' agema and the royal hypaspists".

I suggest that they formed an elite group within the ‘agema’, which is designated in the sources by various terms.

‘hoi Hypaspistai Basilikoi’, Arrian I 8 iv, III 13 vi, IV 24 x and V 13 iv

These passages establish a tripartite structure within the Hypaspist corps, this was suggested by Berve in the early twentieth century but Tarn’s criticism has consigned the German’s views to the sidelines, despite the lack of argumentation on Tarn’s side.

Are we giving away hoi amph' hauton hetairois in favour of hoi Hypaspistai Basilikoi? If so, you may be better advised to stick with the former! I think the pursuit of a tripartite structure of the hypaspists is an unnecessary complication and the only likely tripartite structure here will be the three views of the protagonists! Almost always Alexander leads the agema/somatophylakes and the hypaspists. Only at Hydaspes do we find a multiplicity of hypaspist divisions. There are the "royal hypaspists", the "royal agema" and the "other" hypaspists. Here I agree with Hammond's numbers (3,000 hypaspists and a 500 man agema) though not necessarily his method for arriving at it. The notation is perplexing for there is very little reason for two "royal" troops within the one unit (there being only one such in the Companion cavalry). It might be easy to see this as franking a tripartite hypaspist corps but there are there are other problems.

You have forgotten another passage dealing with the "royal hypaspists". At 4.24.10 Alexander, having divided his army into three, assigns one third of the royal hypaspists to Ptolemy (hupaspistōn tōn basilikōn to triton meros). If we are positing a small unit, a division into three is useless. On Hammond's numbers (the royal hypaspists being 1,000) a third hardly makes sense either. This needs to be compared with similar notices such as 5.23.7 where Ptolemy is given three chiliarchies of hypaspists (hupaspistōn autō dous khiliarkhias treis). A third of this would make far, far more sense. I would see Arrian using different terms to describe the hypaspists rather than a very small unit.

The hypaspists then are "regular" and the agema. The former Arrian refers to as "royal" or the hypaspists and the latter the agema, the agema of the Macedones, the agema basilikoi, the somatophylakes and the somatophylakes basilikoi.. Tarn might well have been right: the lot were "royal".

On the royal hypaspists at Gaugamela, can this not refer to the rear ranks of the hypaspists dealing with the break throughs? I see no reason to put them in the rear phalanx a la Hammond.

[agesilaos]

It is more in the nature of synthesis, I am just starting from a different place as the 'amph'auton' was obscuring the main issues. I am in the process of answering the rest of the post, naturally it will take a little time as you pointed out I failed to discuss IV 24 x. What i also forgot was that my wargames weekend is next week, so I wasted a whole day travelling yesterday just to have a pretty bad cup of tea halfway up the country, were this the 'Chronology' thread I might lose all belief in my own credibility!!

[Paralus]

Chuckle. Age shall not weary them but the memory will condemn.

Must, at some time (pardon the pun), get to that chronology thread. Perhaps before I'm in a nursing home...

[Xenophon]

Rather short of time at present, and in the meantime I see Pandora’s box has opened up, and we have expanded into just about every anomaly related to Alexander’s army/forces , even though this thread is supposed to be about the paides who were not part of the army, but rather of the court....we just need to drag in the ‘Asthetairoi’ and we’ll pretty much have the lot!! ( Yes, I know, these have been discussed before....)
I’ll confine myself for the time being to doing a little tidying up....
Agesilaos wrote:

Bacon's adage applies to all, so you'll have to explain how Alexander can say that Hermolaos et al are of an when slaves are allowed to beat them; something that would be beyond illegal, and verging on the sacriligious if it were to happen to an ephebe. Alexander being left as regent at 16 surely argues for earlier adultishhood than later, we cannot argue from the sources acceptance of the position as they all know who he became, but that Philip left him in such a position and the army followed him speaks for his age not being a barrier, following a child into battle does not seem to have been a Macedonian trait.

The only ‘slaves’ who were allowed to ‘beat’ the free-born in ancient Greek society were pedagogues. Now contrary to what many think, these were not teachers but rather ‘minders’ particularly of noble or rich men’s sons ( and occasionally daughters), who accompanied their charges in a police-less society to keep them out of harm’s way generally, especially from older men seeking young lovers. This included accompanying them to ‘school’. ( Teachers were called “didaskalos”]. They were also expected to be a sort of ‘moral guide’ to their charges as well. Plato compares them to a horse’s bridle [Laws 808E] According to Plutarch [Alex 24.6], quoting Chares, Alexander was even prepared to risk his life for his worn-out former pedagogue, Lysimachus.

Plautus tells us [Bach 422-439] that a pedagogue/supervisor was in charge of a (generally) boy from about age 7 to age 20 ( incidently confirming 21 as adulthood again). A pedagogue’s quasi-parental control ceased at adulthood, including the right to inflict corporal punishment.

If Hermolaus and co were ‘paides’ who served as ‘somatophylakes’, as we are told, and aged 19-20, then Alexander was entirely correct to say that they were of an age when they were allowed to be beaten by slaves.

As to age, Philip’s nephew Amyntas IV, became King at 6 years old or so ( before Philip as regent eventually deposed him ), but that didn’t make Amyntas ‘adult’, nor did Alexander’s regency at 16. Different rules apply to Royalty.

The only time that the arrival of Paides is mentioned is the party with Amyntas. Since there were clearly Pages at Issos, this cannot have been the first tranche to arrive (contra Hammond) and as every year probably saw an arrival (at least until the expedition plunged into India, where Alexander was thought lost), there had to be something about these 50 boys that merited a mention, the only real candidate is that it was these boys that formed the Conspiracy.

Hardly, for that is not a logical deduction – there is really nothing to connect the two incidents, and as I pointed out earlier, we are not told when Hermolaus and co arrived. As you pointed out, the conspiracy took place early in 327 BC, in Bactra [Arrian IV. 22] whilst these re-inforcements arrived in 331 after Gaugemala,4 years earlier [D.S. XVII.65; Curtius V.1.42 – not mentioned at all elsewhere], which would make them around 15 at the time – hence completely untrained new ‘paides’. I would suggest that the mention of the ‘paides’ cum somatophylakes amongst the re-inforcements in 331 BC is probably merely a casual detail, for we are given an unusual amount of detail of the make-up of these particular re-inforcements...

Paralus wrote:

Must, at some time (pardon the pun), get to that chronology thread. Perhaps before I'm in a nursing home...

....and I to the 'numbers and organisation' thread, once I find time to respond to Paralus' and Agesilaos' longer posts above.....

[agesilaos]

As Paralus says I failed to deal with IV 24 x. Let’s post the Greek;

αὐτὸς δὲ ἄγων τοὺς ὑπασπιστάς τε καὶ τοὺς τοξότας καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ τὴν Κοίνου τε καὶ Ἀττάλου τάξιν καὶ τῶν ἱππέων τὸ ἄγημα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑταίρων ἐς τέσσαρας μάλιστα ἱππαρχίας καὶ τῶν ἱπποτοξοτῶν τοὺς ἡμίσεας ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν % Εὐας ... πόλεως προὐχώρει, ἵνα ὁ τῶν Ἀσπασίων ὕπαρχος ἦν: καὶ διελθὼν πολλὴν ὁδὸν δευτεραῖος ἀφίκετο πρὸς τὴν πόλιν 2] οἱ δὲ βάρβαροι προσάγοντα αἰσθόμενοι Ἀλέξανδρον ἐμπρήσαντες τὴν πόλιν ἔφευγον πρὸς τὰ ὄρη. οἱ δ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον εἴχοντο τῶν φευγόντων ἔστε ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη, καὶ φόνος πολὺς γίγνεται τῶν βαρβάρων, πρὶν ἐς τὰς δυσχωρίας φθάσαι ἀπελθόντας. [3] τὸν δὲ ἡγεμόνα αὐτὸν τῶν ταύτῃ Ἰνδῶν Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου πρός τινι ἤδη γηλόφῳ ὄντα κατιδὼν καὶ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ἔστιν οὕς ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν ξὺν πολὺ ἐλάττοσιν αὐτὸς ὤν ὅμως ἐδίωκεν ἔτι ἐκ τοῦ ἵππου: ὡς δὲ χαλεπὸς ὁ γήλοφος τῷ ἵππῳ ἀναδραμεῖν ἦν, τοῦτον μὲν αὐτοῦ καταλείπει παραδούς τινι τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ἄγειν, αὐτὸς δὲ ὡς εἶχε πεζὸς τῷ Ἰνδῷ εἵπετο. [4] ὁ δὲ ὡς πελάζοντα ἤδη κατεῖδε τὸν Πτολεμαῖον, αὐτός τε μεταβάλλει ἐς τὸ ἔμπαλιν καὶ οἱ ὑπασπισταὶ ξὺν αὐτῷ. καὶ ὁ μὲν Ἰνδὸς τοῦ Πτολεμαίου διὰ τοῦ θώρακος παίει ἐκ χειρὸς ἐς τὸ στῆθος ξυστῷ μακρῷ, καὶ ὁ θώραξ ἔσχε τὴν πληγήν: Πτολεμαῖος δὲ τὸν μηρὸν διαμπὰξ βαλὼν τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ καταβάλλει τε καὶ σκυλεύει αὐτόν[5] ὡς δὲ τὸν ἡγεμόνα σφῶν κείμενον οἱ ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν εἶδον, οὗτοι μὲν οὐκέτι ἔμενον, οἱ δὲ ἐκ τῶν ὀρῶν αἰρόμενον τὸν νεκρὸν τοῦ ὑπάρχου ἰδόντες πρὸς τῶν πολεμίων ἤλγησάν τε καὶ καταδραμόντες ξυνάπτουσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ μάχην καρτερὰν πρὸς τῷ γηλόφῳ. ἤδη γὰρ καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἔχων τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἵππων καταβεβηκότας πεζοὺς πρὸς τῷ γηλόφῳ ἦν. καὶ οὗτοι ἐπιγενόμενοι μόγις ἐξέωσαν τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς ἐς τὰ ὄρη καὶ τοῦ νεκροῦ ἐκράτησαν. [6] ὑπερβαλὼν δὲ τὰ ὄρη Ἀλέξανδρος ἐς πόλιν κατῆλθεν, ᾗ ὄνομα ἦν Ἀριγαῖον: καὶ ταύτην καταλαμβάνει ἐμπεπρησμένην ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνοικούντων καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πεφευγότας. ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἀφίκοντο αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ ἀμφὶ Κρατερὸν ξὺν τῇ στρατιᾷ πεπραγμένων σφίσι ξυμπάντων ὅσα ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐτέτακτο. [7] ταύτην μὲν δὴ τὴν πόλιν, ὅτι ἐν ἐπικαίρῳ χωρίῳ ἐδόκει ᾠκίσθαι, ἐκτειχίσαι τε προστάσσει Κρατερῷ καὶ ξυνοικίσαι ἐς αὐτὴν τούς τε προσχώρους ὅσοι ἐθελονταί καὶ εἰ δή τινες ἀπόμαχοι τῆς στρατιᾶς. αὐτὸς δὲ προὐχώρει ἵνα ξυμπεφευγέναι ἐπυνθάνετο τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν ταύτῃ βαρβάρων. ἐλθὼν δὲ πρός τι ὄρος κατεστρατοπέδευσεν ὑπὸ ταῖς ὑπωρείαις τοῦ ὄρους. 8] καὶ ἐν τούτῳ Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου ἐκπεμφθεὶς μὲν ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐς προνομήν, προελθὼν δὲ προσωτέρω αὐτὸς ξὺν ὀλίγοις ὡς ἐς κατασκοπήν, ἀπαγγέλλει Ἀλεξάνδρῳ πυρὰ κατιδεῖν τῶν βαρβάρων πλείονα ἤ ἐν τῷ Ἀλεξάνδρου στρατοπέδῳ. [9] καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος τῷ μὲν πλήθει τῶν πυρῶν ἠπίστησεν, εἶναι δέ τι ξυνεστηκὸς τῶν ταύτῃ βαρβάρων αἰσθόμενος μέρος μὲν τῆς στρατιᾶς αὐτοῦ καταλείπει πρὸς τῷ ὄρει ὡς εἶχον ἐστρατοπεδευμένους: αὐτὸς δὲ ἀναλαβὼν ὅσοι ἀποχρῶντες ἐς τὰ ἀπηγγελμένα ἐφαίνοντο, ὡς πλησίον ἤδη ἀφεώρων τὰ πυρά, τρίχα διανέμει τὴν στρατιάν[10] καὶ τῷ μὲν ἑνὶ ἐπέταξε Λεοννάτον τὸν σωματοφύλακα, ξυντάξας αὐτῷ τήν τε Ἀττάλου καὶ τὴν Βαλάκρου τάξιν: τὴν δευτέραν δὲ μοῖραν Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Λάγου ἄγειν ἔδωκε, τῶν τε ὑπασπιστῶν τῶν βασιλικῶν τὸ τρίτον μέρος καὶ τὴν Φιλίππου καὶ Φιλώτα τάξιν καὶ δύο χιλιαρχίας τῶν τοξοτῶν καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας καὶ τῶν ἱππέων τοὺς ἡμίσεας: τὴν δὲ τρίτην μοῖραν αὐτὸς ἦγεν ἵνα οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν βαρβάρων ἐφαίνοντο.

And Chinook’s indifferent translation

ALEXANDER now took command of the shield-bearing guards, the archers, the Agrianians, the brigades of Coenus and Attalus, the royal body-guard of cavalry, about four regiments of the other Companion cavalry, and half of the horse-archers, and advanced towards the river Euaspla,’ where the chieftain of the Aspasians was. After a long journey he arrived at the city on the second day. When the barbarians ascertained that he was approaching they set fire to the city and fled to the mountains. But Alexander followed close upon the fugitives as far as the mountains, and slaughtered many of them before they could manage to get away into the places which were difficult of access. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, observing that the leader himself of the Indians of that district was on a certain hill, and that he had some of his shield-bearing guards round him, though he had with himself far fewer men, yet he still continued to pursue him on horseback. But as the hill was difficult for his horse to run up, he left it there, handing it over to one of the shield-bearing guards to lead. He then followed the Indian on foot without any delay. When the latter observed Ptolemy approaching, he turned round, and so did the shield-bearing guards with him. The Indian at close quarters struck Ptolemy on the chest through the breastplate with a long spear, but the breastplate checked the violence of the blow. Then Ptolemy, smiting right through the Indian’s thigh, overthrew him, and stripped him of his arms. When his men saw their leader lying dead, they stood their ground no longer; but the men on the mountains, seeing their chieftain’s corpse being carried off by the enemy, were seized with indignation, and running down engaged in a desperate conflict over him on the hill. For Alexander himself was now on the hill with the infantry who had dismounted from the horses. These, falling upon the Indians, drove them away to the mountains after a hard struggle, and remained in possession of the corpse. Then crossing the mountains he descended to a city called Arigaeum, and found that this had been set on fire by the inhabitants, who had afterwards fled. There Craterus with his army reached him, after accomplishing all the king’s orders; and because this city seemed to be built in a convenient place, he directed that general to fortify it well, and settle in it as many of the neighbouring people as were willing to live there, together with any of the soldiers who were unfit for service. He then advanced to the place where he heard that most of the barbarians of the district had fled for refuge; and coming to a certain mountain, he encamped at the foot of it. Meantime Ptolemy, son of Lagus, being sent out by Alexander on a foraging expedition, and advancing a considerable distance with a few men to reconnoitre, brought back word to the king that he had observed many more fires in the camp of the barbarians than there were in Alexander’s. But the latter did not believe in the multitude of the enemy’s fires. Discovering, however, that the barbarians of the district had joined their forces into one body, he left a part of his army there near the mountain, encamped as they were, and taking as many men as seemed sufficient, according to the reports he had received, as soon as they could descry the fires near at hand, he divided his army into three parts. Over one part he placed Leonnatus, the confidential body-guard, joining the brigades of Attalus and Balacrus with his own; the second division he put under the lead of Ptolemy, son of Lagus, including the third part of the royal shield-bearing guards, the brigades of Philip and Philotas, two regiments of archers, the Agrianians, and half of the cavalry. The third division he himself led towards the place where most of the barbarians were visible

Despite Krateros re-joining the king at Arigaeum, Alexander seems to have left the phalanx components of Krateros’ force there in its entirety, as later 25 v

Kρατερὸς μὲν δὴ ἐκτετειχικὼς ἤδη τὴν πόλιν, ἐφ᾽ ἧς τῷ οἰκισμῷ κατελέλειπτο, τούς τε βαρύτερον ὡπλισμένους τῆς στρατιᾶς Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἦγεν καὶ τὰς μηχανάς, εἴ που πολιορκίας δεήσειεν.

Having finished fortifying the city as per his orders, Krateros joins the army again with the heavy –armed soldiers and the siege engines, ie the troops that had composed his original column.

We can then analyse the forces with which Alexander moved against the Aspasians; Leonnatos has his own hipparchy, the phalanx of Attalos and the unit of Balakros, type unspecified. Ptolemy has 1/3rd of the Royal Hypaspists, the units of Philip and Philotas, both unspecified (but not phalangites as only Koinos’ unit remains) two chiliarchia of archers, the Agrianoi and half the cavalry, two hipparchies. This leaves Alexander, the agema of the Companion cavalry, one line hipparchy, the mounted archers, Koinos’ phalanx and 2/3 of the Royal Hypaspists and any of the other Hypaspists not included in the other two columns.

Tarn argued from this passage that the appellation ‘Royal Hypaspists’ applied to all the Hypaspists, including the ‘agema’, yet, as we have seen the ‘Royal Hypaspists’ are named as separate from the ‘agema’ and the ‘other hypaspists’ on each occasion that they are mentioned. There are also the unassigned commanders, Balakros, Philip and Philotas, to consider. They cannot be phalanx commanders as the two phalanx units are accounted for. Balakros is generally a commander of Thracian javelineers and Alexander may have taken these from Krateros’ column, were they not Leonattos would have no light infantry with him. Philip and Philotas remain, they must then be hypaspist officers, as only that corps remains of the infantry, further the construction ‘τὴν x καὶ y τάξιν’ invariably applies to two units of the same type and again the Hypaspists seem the only option (though that does not stop Bosworth suggesting they were lights!) .

A further question, then, is what level do they represent? Proponents of the four chiliarchy structure could argue that they are chiliarchs with the Royal Hypaspists as the fourth under Seleukos (as at Hydaspes). Such a solution leaves Alexander woefully under strength with about 2,000 infantry and perhaps 1,000 cavalry, a force dwarfed by that of Ptolemy with 2,300 elite foot, 3,000 light foot and 500 cavalry, almost twice as strong.

Curtius V 2 v does name a Philotas as one of the victors in the games at Sittacene

His ita conpositis in regionem, quae satrapea Sittacene vocatur, pervenit: fertilis terra, copia rerum et omni commeatu abundans. 2 Itaque diutius ibi substitit ac, ne desides otio demitterent animos, iudices dedit praemiaque proposuit de virtute militari certantibus nova: qui fortissimi iudicati essent, singulis militum milibus praefuturi erant. 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.

There are problems with this passage but the eight name individuals, and the ‘septum locum…ultimum’ indicates that Curtius’ source did give eight names, fits into the three chiliarchy structure exactly if one assumes that the leadership of the whole corps was not up for grabs, Alexander would choose the Archihypaspist, and that command of the part of the ‘agema’ that was the Royal Hypaspists, was similarly restricted (to a graduate of the unit itself perhaps, in my structure; other structures are of course available and will also fit). But if the three named are line (for want of a better word) pentekosiarchs then Alexander has a line pentekostys, the non- noble ‘agema’ and around 350 of the elite Royal Hypaspists pushing his infantry to 2,800 and Ptolemy’s falls to 1,150 elites and c.3,000 lights; a more even distribution of forces, but with Alexander’s column maintaining the qualitative edge.

Paralus’ question will remain, what use are 150 men?

They are worth a lot if the terrain is close, as it seems to have been here and there is a hint that the Royal Hypaspists may have had a promachoic (fighting ahead of the main battle line) string to their bow (not that I am suggesting they were archers!). At the Hydaspes Arr V 13 iv

τῶν δὲ πεζῶν πρώτους μὲν τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς τοὺς βασιλικούς, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Σέλευκος, ἐπέταξε τῇ ἵππῳ: ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὸ ἄγημα τὸ βασιλικόν: ἐχομένους δὲ τούτων τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπασπιστάς, ὡς ἑκάστοις αἱ ἡγεμονίαι ἐν τῷ τότε ξυνέβαινον: κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἄκρα τῆς φάλαγγος οἱ τοξόται αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ Ἀγριᾶνες [καὶ] οἱ ἀκοντισταὶ ἑκατέρωθεν ἐπέστησαν.

‘The Royal Hypaspists were deployed in front (protous) of the foot next to the horse…’ seemingly to cover the deployment of the ‘agema’ the’ other hypaspists’ the rest of the phalanx and the psiloi on the wings, quite how this would be achieved is a matter of debate (another one!) but it would seem they could be used as a spearhead force.

[agesilaos]

To address Xenophon’s comments first; Plautus is writing comedy, and the context here is of an old man being reminded by his slave of how different education is from his days; one might therefore expect some comic exaggeration, unless one is wiling too believe that seven year olds were frequently bashing their pedagogues’ heads in with impunity. It is not a picture of reality.

You are hoist on your own petard by Amyntas, the fact that a Regent was required demonstrates that the Macedonians too recognised he was a child. Philip V is made king, after he has had a regent, Antigonos Doson , when he is 18. Throughout history , regency lasts for childhood and ends when the royal is deemed adult,

That the mention, sorry, the only mention of the arrival of any Paides is a coincidental detail is possible, but that theory depends on a belief in our sources being transmitted very haphazardly. Personally, I think there was slightly more thought behind things, though that is an unprovable opinion.

Paralus, whilst your interpretations are acceptable, since they represent the consensus, I think you must accept that the most natural interpretation of the evidence is that the ‘Hypaspistai Basilikoi’ were a separate body; they are attested four times separately; more than there are for ‘pezhetairoi’; it is the attempts to explain this unit away that strain, individually the arguments are reasonable but to deploy a different one for each instance? There is an example of ‘reasonable doubt’, and that is at Granikos where we meet ‘the Hypaspists of the Companions’, a sole attestation, and clearly meaning the whole of the Hypaspists. This would, however be the most natural appellation for those supposed servants some say hang behind the cavalry with shields they are never attested using.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

I agree with Agesilaos that 'liberi adulti' most likely refers to adolescents (which might even reflect "grown up children"). You see this as the equivalent of 'noblissimi iuvenes' and, as a result, still defined as being of the paides basilikoi. The terminology (if technical terminology it is) is not consistent. There was, though, a distinction in Curtius' mind and he makes it clear in the riot in Babylon after the king's death (10.7.16-21). Perdiccas is trapped in the royal quarters with 600 men of "valour". Here he is joined by "Ptolemy and the company of the royal pages" (puerorumque regia cohors). Later, as Meleagher attempts to trap them, Perdiccas and those with him (the 600 plus the pages) "slipped away through another part of the royal quarters and fled towards the Euphrates". We are then told that "the cavalry, composed of young men from the best families, went with Perdiccas and Leonnatus in large numbers..." Young men from the best families" (qui ex nobilissimis iuvenum). Now it is hardly conceivable that the Companion cavalry is made up "in large numbers" of paides (= noblissimi iuvenes) too young to be of military age or part of a "regular army unit". Further, the paides (the puerorumque regia cohors) are a clearly separate group to the departing cavalry who are nobilissimis iuvenum.

You misinterpret what I said, and are mis-applying semantics....the term 'young nobles' is not age-specific, nor did I say it applied only to ephebic paides. As in English, it is a generic, rather vague term which could be, and was, applied to ephebic paides, just as the term 'somatophylakes'/bodyguards could be applied in a general sense to different groups. I agree the expression is not a technical, or specific one. The term 'young nobles' could of course be equally used to describe twenty-something Hetairoi cavalry too, just as elsewhere it is applied to describe ephebic paides....

Incidently, doesn't this passage suggest that Hammond may have been right about where the 'young nobles' of the paides graduated to ? They became some of the 'young nobles' of the Hetairoi cavalry.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaus wrote:

To address Xenophon’s comments first; Plautus is writing comedy, and the context here is of an old man being reminded by his slave of how different education is from his days; one might therefore expect some comic exaggeration, unless one is wiling too believe that seven year olds were frequently bashing their pedagogues’ heads in with impunity. It is not a picture of reality.

You are hoist on your own petard by Amyntas, the fact that a Regent was required demonstrates that the Macedonians too recognised he was a child. Philip V is made king, after he has had a regent, Antigonos Doson , when he is 18.Throughout history, regency lasts for childhood and ends when the royal is deemed adult.........

The suggestion that Plautus is 'exaggerating' the age limits by suggesting that adulthood began at 21 - the age of adulthood being something his entire audience would be aware of, is implausible to say the least. It is the factual background against which the play is set.


In any event, none of this outweighs the rather more solid (pun intended! )inscriptional evidence, referred to by Hatzopoulos, that in Macedon, adulthood began at 21, just as it did in Athens and Sparta ( and probably all over Greece) and that in all three cases also, the next milestone was what we might call mature adulthood at age 30.

"Hoist on my own petard" ? Some confusion here surely, for it was I who was pointing out that the rules for Royalty were different, that ascending the throne did not make one adult :

As to age, Philip’s nephew Amyntas IV, became King at 6 years old or so ( before Philip as regent eventually deposed him ), but that didn’t make Amyntas ‘adult’, nor did Alexander’s regency at 16. Different rules apply to Royalty.

As to Philip V inheriting the throne at 18, that was not because Doson as Regent handed it over to him at that age. Philip was Demetrius II's son, born some time in late summer 238 BC, who became king upon his father's death in 229 BC. Because he was only around 9, Antigonus was appointed Regent. Two years later Antigonus married Chryseis, Demetrius' widow, the mother of Philip V, and took the throne, becoming King himself.

In 222 BC, Doson, allied to the Achaean league defeated the Spartan King Cleomenes, and captured Sparta. Then he had to hurry north as unsurprisingly the Illyrians had seized an opportunity to invade whilst the King and army were away down south. Antigonus defeated them, in July 221 BC, but in the process died on the battlefield, probably of a haemorrhage. Philip, as Doson's step-son and heir finally became King, and it is mere co-incidence that he happened to be 17 or so at the time. As we have seen, even babes could inherit the throne, but that did not make the King 'adult'.

[Paralus]

You misinterpret what I said, and are mis-applying semantics....the term 'young nobles' is not age-specific, nor did I say it applied only to ephebic paides.

I think we can leave it at "misinterpret"; I do not see any misapplication of "semantics". Rereading what you wrote ("can be called") we agree the term is not technical. What is at issue in the passage is the fact that Curtius has cause to refer to both "units": the paides basilikoi and the Companion cavalry. Curtius clearly differentiates between the two: one are puer and the other nobilissimis iuvenum. As Heckel has noted, not every use of iuvenes nobilis refers to a page. Every use of puer does. In the situation at Babylon, Curtius consistently refers to the pages as puer from the beginning ( Nobiles pueri custodiae corporis, 10.5. until the end (pueris regiae cohortis, 10.8.3). Were there no reference to cavalry one might be tempted to call the nobilissimis iuvenum of Babylon pages. Only the context can reveal what the meaning is.

I've not looked to see whether other such passages exist and do not really have time. In fact, there's been so much going on in this thread that I've stopped at a McDonalds to use the wifi and try to catch up. A futile task methinks.

[Xenophon]

More tidying up :

Agesilaos wrote:

'phalanx' used for the individual units (V 20 iii, too); 'battalion' is the worst possible translation of 'taxis' (see the thread 'defining ones terms'), it is a general word and should be translated as such, the neutral 'unit' is best. I agree with Paralus above except on Pelion, but let's leave that for a future thread!

Xenophon wrote:

‘Phalanx’ is best literally translated as ‘roller’ and refers to the main infantry battle line, which could be one or many ‘taxeis’

I agree that 'Taxis' is strictly speaking a general term for any large unit in our various sources for the ancient Greek world, and that in a Macedonian context it usually referred to the (originally) six largest 'heavy' infantry units made up of sarissaphoroi/pikemen. You'll notice that what we said is consistent, and in agreement - a phalanx could be/refer to a single taxis, as in the examples you gave.