pothos.org

agesilaos wrote:

[2]αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιλεξάμενος τῶν τε ἑταίρων τὸ ἄγημα καὶ τὴν Ἡφαιστίωνος ἱππαρχίαν

ARR V 12

As you can see the agema is listed separately from Hephaistion's hipparchy so the two cannot be the same. When Philotas had charge of the Companion Cavalry Kleitos the Black commanded the Royal Squadron.

Quite so: my error of conflation of the "first hipparchy". Must watch the red. Interesting, though, that after the reorganisation (hipparchies) there is never an attested commander of the cavalry agema though it is mentioned often (getting onto ships, being taken by the king etc).

Whilst on that, the reference to "Hephaestion's chiliarchy" has often been taken to prove that the cavalry hipparchies are called chiliarchies (so Griffith for example). This is a misconception. We have many attestations to the component groups of the Companion cavalry right unto Babylon and the name used every time is hipparchy. Arrian notes that three "hipparchies were taken..."; "the hipparchies of..." et al but never three chiliarchies or the chiliarchy of. At 7.11.6 one Kallines is distinguished both by his age and his hipparchy in the Comapanion cavalry(ἱππαρχίαν τῆς ἵππου τῆς ἑταιρικῆς) - not chiliarchy in the Companion cavalry. The cause for angst at Susa/Opis is the infiltration of barbarian hipparchies into the Companion cavalry not chiliarchies. "Hephaestion's chiliarchy" is far more likely simply his command of the cavalry. His hipparchy was named after him (like that of Perdiccas, Demetrius etc) and the distinction is that, unlike others, his name would continue to be attached to it.

On Oxyarthes being made a member of the companion cavalry, the sources make this extremely unlikely. Oxyarthes is clearly left behind in Ecbatana where he was a party to the punishment of Bessus. He is not mentioned afterwards in the train of Alexander and, more so, in the list of trierarchs where Bagoas son of Pharnuches is the only Persian hetairoi. This "complex and multi-faceted Persianisation" was clearly very limited.

Taphoi wrote:Clearly, this was a Grand Vizier role controlling audience access to the king. It also involved command of a personal or palace guard of the king. Insofar as Hephaistion had any such role it was as Commander of Alexander's seven elite bodyguards rather than his command of the Companion Cavalry. There is no basis in anything that has been stated to refute the standard scholarly position on this matter.

Not only is that a highly selective and misleading presentation of Briant's position, your speculation - which can only be textually based on Diodorus 17.61.3 - that Hephaestion was "Commander of Alexander's seven elite bodyguards" is completely anachronistic in the context of the chiliarchy. At Gaugamela Hephaestion was no "grand vizier" or hazarapatis who thus commanded the elite bodyguards.

As to Briant's position, one wonders why you would so selectively quote a single paragraph from a section dealing with the "royal audience" (and proskynesis) and totally fail to point to the later section (pp 258-261) that deals specifically with the chiliarch? Surely it could not be that, by so doing, you are able to imply that Briant shares your claim that the chiliarch was a "Grand Vizier"? Your selectivity with respect to Pierre Briant absolutely misrepresents his view.In fact Briant's scholarly position disagrees with you that the chiliarch "clearly [...]was a Grand Vizier role". Pierre Briant actually sees as this as "highly improbable"; but of course you did not bother to include that. Proper method would see another scholar's view presented with far more honesty than you have done. From Cyrus to Alexander, pp 258-260:

Paralus wrote:

Taphoi wrote:Clearly, this was a Grand Vizier role controlling audience access to the king. It also involved command of a personal or palace guard of the king. Insofar as Hephaistion had any such role it was as Commander of Alexander's seven elite bodyguards rather than his command of the Companion Cavalry. There is no basis in anything that has been stated to refute the standard scholarly position on this matter.

Not only is that a highly selective and misleading presentation of Briant's position, your speculation - which can only be textually based on Diodorus 17.61.3 - that Hephaestion was "Commander of Alexander's seven elite bodyguards" is completely anachronistic in the context of the chiliarchy. At Gaugamela Hephaestion was no "grand vizier" or hazarapatis who thus commanded the elite bodyguards.

There is no anachronism. Since Hephaistion was Commander of the Seven Bodyguards at Gaugamela, he was still Commander of the then Eight Bodyguards when he died, since Arrian, Anabasis 6.28.4 includes him in his list of the Bodyguards late in 325BC.

Paralus wrote:As to Briant's position, one wonders why you would so selectively quote a single paragraph from a section dealing with the "royal audience" (and proskynesis) and totally fail to point to the later section (pp 258-261) that deals specifically with the chiliarch? Surely it could not be that, by so doing, you are able to imply that Briant shares your claim that the chiliarch was a "Grand Vizier"? Your selectivity with respect to Pierre Briant absolutely misrepresents his view.In fact Briant's scholarly position disagrees with you that the chiliarch "clearly [...]was a Grand Vizier role". Pierre Briant actually sees as this as "highly improbable"; but of course you did not bother to include that. Proper method would see another scholar's view treated far more respectfully than you have done.

Nothing in the further quotes from Briant changes the position with regard to the point at issue: whether the Hazarapatis was an officer in the Persian cavalry or a top official at court. Briant is simply questioning the precise role of the Hazarapatis in the Persian court and dislikes the "Grand Vizier" terminology (although most other authorities have found it apt, since Grand Viziers ran the courts of Sultans and Briant does not disagree that that was what the Hazarapatis did for the Great King).

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:There is no anachronism. Since Hephaistion was Commander of the Seven Bodyguards at Gaugamela, he was still Commander of the then Eight Bodyguards when he died, since Arrian, Anabasis 6.28.4 includes him in his list of the Bodyguards late in 325BC.

In a passage replete with detail including regional background. Yet nowhere does he describe Hephaestion as a commander of the group he has otherwise so fulsomely described. Heckel and Collins do not see this as command of the elite seven bodyguards and Welles states it had no commander but "it is indeed your prerogative to ignore everybody, if you like".

Taphoi wrote:Nothing in the further quotes from Briant changes the position with regard to the point at issue: whether the Hazarapatis was an officer in the Persian cavalry or a top official at court. Briant is simply questioning the precise role of the Hazarapatis in the Persian court and dislikes the "Grand Vizier" terminology (although most other authorities have found it apt, since Grand Viziers ran the courts of Sultans and Briant does not disagree that that was what the Hazarapatis did for the Great King).

That is little more than exculpatory sophistry and dissembling. You continue to misrepresent Briant's view and clearly to a purpose.

You claimed to examine "what the authoritative Persian Empire experts say about the Persian rank of Hazarapatis/Chiliarch" and, having quoted Briant, claimed that "Clearly, this was a Grand Vizier role". Briant clearly rejects this stating that such a view is "highly improbable" and goes onto say it is "highly unlikely that the King was ever flanked by a prime minister" with supporting argument. What he clearly does not say is that he "dislikes the 'Grand Vizier' terminology" and that the hazarapartis ran the King's court like "Grand Viziers ran the courts of Sultans". That is invention on your part for Briant rejects the notion the hazarapartis ever had the powers of a "grand vizier".

The section from Briant's opus which I scanned deals specifically with the position of chiliarch (and the audience service) why did you not reference it?

Only Arrian, Anabasis 3.21.1 could be taken to imply that the Persian Chiliarchy was conjoined with a cavalry command, but he is accepted to have been confused on the relationship between the Chiliarchy and an independent cavalry command in general.

So presumably, Arr. Anab VII xiv 10, Diod.XVIII iii 4, and the references in Photius do not exist? Or is your position that Arrian made a mistake over Nabarzanes’ chiliarchy that he then modified what he found in Ptolemy or Aristoboulos describing Hephaistion’s chiliarchy in the light of this and then went on to apply this erroneous description to what he found in Hieronymos; or is there any evidence to support a claim that the chiliarchy did not include the cavalry command? I for one do not accept Arrian ‘to have been confused on the relationship between the Chiliarchy and an independent cavalry command in general.’ Nor does Alexander Meeus (Some Institutional Problems Concerning the Succession to ATG: Prostasia and Chiliarchy, forthcoming), A W Collins (The Office of Chiliarch under Alexander and the Successors; Phoenix 55 2001), P Briant (Sources greco-hellenistiques, institutions perses et institutions macedoniennes: continuites, changements et bricolages Achemenid History 8, Leiden 1994) most recent scholarship in fact.

The one function of the Chiliarch open to Hephaistion was the cavalry command atttested for him, Perdikkas and Kassandros directly and Seleukos by intimation (A B Bosworth is unhappy with the identification but as I mentioned above the only command taken over by Perdikkas that Hephaistion had held is the Chiliarchy which command is called the command over the Companion cavalry when Seleukos in turn succeeds to it).

people can judge for themselves

Indeed they can.

And just an afterword on quoting the sources; it is good form to say where the fragment or epitome of the original is found and particularly bad form to say ‘Cleitarchus wrote’ when it is in your own words; some people on the forum may be confused into thinking that the quote is actually his and not yours; I know you prefaced this ‘quote’ this time but it not always your practice.

Diodoros XVII 61 iv says

τῶν σωματοφυλάκων ἡγούμενος

the word ‘somatophylax’ can mean many things, especially in Diodoros’ source, Kleitarchos, who uses it for not just the Seven but also the hypaspists and the cavalry agema we can tell this from Curtius’ use of custodes corporis the equivalent Latin phrase; an argument based on a equivocal translation is never going to be strong, and for such a group of magnates to have a ‘leader’ seems at once pointless and counter to the institutionalised pussy-footing around issues of precedence represented by practices of allocating battlefield position and allotment of duties by sortition.

Taphoi wrote: All the arguments showing this are quite irrelevant to the more specific question of whether the Chiliarchy was identical with or conjoined with an elite cavalry command in the sense that one could not be Hazarapatis without commanding a specific unit of elite cavalry.

Taphoi wrote:Only Arrian, Anabasis 3.21.1 could be taken to imply that the Persian Chiliarchy was conjoined with a cavalry command, but he is accepted to have been confused on the relationship between the Chiliarchy and an independent cavalry command in general.

I see your selectivity facilitates your ability to judge when Arrian is accurate and when he is not. This is not surprising, I suppose, given your ability to know what Arrian did and did not think/know [...Arrian is confused on this point. He doesn't know (as we do) that Chiliarch (meaning Lord of a Thousand in Greek) is just a literal translation of the Persian title Hazarapatis. [...] Arrian has therefore (seemingly of his own volition) tried to reconcile this by supposing that Hephaistion's title of Chiliarch had something to do with his troop commands. Unfortunately, this leap of the imagination was not valid].

The fact remains that Curtius names Nabarzanes as commander of the cavalry at Issos (3.9.1). At Gaugamela Arrian names Mazaeus in this position and Bessus commands the left. Nabarzanes is not mentioned by name. After the battle Arrian (3.23.4)calls Nabarzanes Darius' Chiliarch (ὁ Δαρείου χιλιάρχης). He also clearly describes him as the commander of the cavalry which fled with Darius (χιλιάρχης τῶν ξὺν Δαρείῳ φευγόντων ἱππέων - 3.21.1). This can only be the Kinsmen who were about Darius and no other source contradicts this nor does any other source place Nabarzanes elsewhere.

The literary evidence is straightforward. Your only counter argument is to claim an egregious error on Arrian's behalf - an error you would have Arrian repeat and elucidate upon (7.14.10) when he straightforwardly states that "Alexander made no one else chiliarch of the Companion cavalry in Hephaestion's place". An error that Plutarch too made when he said that Eumenes "received the command in the cavalry which Perdiccas had held, when Perdiccas, after Hephaestion's death, was advanced to that officer's position". Note that Eumenes receives Perdiccas' troop or hipparchy, Perdiccas' the whole Companion cavalry - Hephaestion's "chiliarchy" of the Companion cavalry.

Taphoi wrote:It was also in Hyrcania that Nabarzanes, the previous Chiliarch, surrendered to Alexander and was sent into retirement, so that was when the post became vacant.

Briant, too, agrees that Nabarzanes was Darius' chiliarch, a title he calls him on page 865. Given your high regard for Briant's scholarship it might be interesting, so that people can judge for themselves, to know how Briant views this chiliarch Nabarzanes. Cyrus to Alexander p745:

agesilaos wrote: Nor does Alexander Meeus (Some Institutional Problems Concerning the Succession to ATG: Prostasia and Chiliarchy, forthcoming)...

Actually Historia, Band 58/3 2009, pp. 287-210.

Cheers, the reference was missing when I recieved it and I was led into error by it's draft appearance, Doh!

Taphoi wrote:There is no basis in anything that has been stated to refute the standard scholarly position on this matter.

The "standard scholarly position on this matter" - that the chiliarch ran the Persian court as "the Grand Viziers ran the courts of Sultans" - is dicussed by A W Collins in his paper The Office of Chiliarch under Alexander and the Successors, (Phoenix, Vol. 55, No. 3/4 , 2001, pp. 259-283):

As can readily be seen, Collins rejects this notion as being "founded on an excessively modern view of the administration and institutions of ancient Persia" He further states that "there is in fact no evidence to show that the chiliarch had any great administrative role" and that "the attested responsibilities the post hardly justify the facile "vizier"designation so frequently employed in modern studies". The footnote (73) attached to this observation refers to the very same Pierre Briant I have referenced above. Collins goes on to say that the "Macedonian chiliarchy was, by itself, probably not much more than a title of honour" (and, I would add, the cavalry command). Again, Pierre Briant is referenced on this point.

Collins readily perceives what another here seems unable to bring himself to: that Briant rejects the overly modern notion that the chiliarch ever had the powers or position of the "Grand Vizier" of the courts of the Sultans. Pierre Briant, in BhachII (the electronic "update resource" for Cyrus to Alexander), comments that he maintains this view on the "position of the (so called!) Grand Vizier" (4.2 page 107). Presumably he maintains a view he never had?

Given the number of views of the pages from Briant, should anyone be interested in a copy of the referenced papers in this thread I'm available via PM.