Neoptolemos: the invisible Archihypaspist

[Paralus]

A prosopographical digression, the nature of the beast, I suppose.

I see no good reason for making 'Ptolemy son of Seleukos,one of the Royal Bodyguards' I 24 ii, different from 'Ptolemy the Bodyguard' of I 22 vii, or 'Ptolemy son of Seleukos' of II 10. That the reported death occurs before the furlough of the 'neogamoi' need not prove the insurmountable problem it would have in the days of Arrrian's quasi-papal infallibility, it is now recognised that errors are not uncommon and he could confuse things;

Unless one can conclusively prove error it is far better to accept the text as given. Arrian is clear that Ptolemy the Somatophylax led troops at Halicarnassus and died there. He then has a Ptolemy son of Seleukos lead the neogamoi home, return and die at Issos. Ptolemy the Somatophylax (capitalisation = member of the ‘seven’) is introduced without patronynmic – in the manner of the other members of the ‘seven’ (aside from the son of Lagos - for obvious reasons). I cannot see the two as the same individual. Such reasoning has Alexander’s admiral, Nearkhos, as a chiliarch of hypaspists.

I cannot agree that at I 24 ii the 'somatophylakeia' refers to service in the 'basilike ile';

I don’t believe I claimed such. What I meant was that if Ptolemy son of Seleukos is a Somatophylax, then he is much more likely to be protecting the king on horseback and thus in the ile basilike. The fact that, at Gaugamela, Hephaestion “led the somatophylakes” in Diodorus might confuse the issue though.

I see his 'somatophylakeia' as service in the 'agema',

I’m glad we agree:

Ptolemy cannot have been a Somatophylax for he here is a taxiarch and, as I’ve argued elsewhere - Xenophon’s more modern notions of ‘rank’ aside – he is unlikely ever to have seen his removal from the group of seven to be a promotion. He is likely an officer of the agema and has been promoted.

I would not place much confidence in the Vulgate version, it contains too many unlikely details;

Actually I find the Vulgate is far more satisfying than Arrian / Ptolemy’s version (as I do the description at Thebes). As I say, Arrian would have this a walk in the park when it clearly was not. I take the point about the “time expired veterans” and am happy to acknowledge a little exaggeration for effect. The salient points of the Vulgate – the hard battle and with Alexander taken somewhat by surprise and the reserve to the rescue – I accept. I would also add that the king, leading on foot, is hardly to do so without his infantry agema.

I appear to have wandere; at Issos, I would say that Ptolemy the taxiarch was listed sans patronym, whereas Ptolemy the son of Seleukos was not even named in the dispositions, which is usual for the individual leaders of the hypaspist chiliarchia or pentekosia (if one prefers); when it came to the casualties Arrian conflated the taxiarch and the somatophylax, perhaps aided by his memory of Ptolemy son of seleukos' mission in the company of Koinos and Meleager, the neighbours of Ptolemy the taxiarch's unit in the battle-line

None of which is telling. Arrian gives no patronymic for any of the infantry commanders aside from Nikanor who commands the hypaspists. As I’ve noted, Ptolemy the Somatophylax is also introduced sans patronymic at Halicarnassus. If he is the same man as the leader of the neogamoi, there is little reason for Arrian to not so identify him when he first is introduced especially as, near immediately after this notice, he apparently feels compelled to do so even though he’s just killed him off. It is far more likely that Ptolemy son of Seleukos is introduced as such because he is not the same man as Ptolemy of Halicarnassus.

On the casualties, it is, to me, more likely that Arrian gives Ptolemy’s patronymic precisely because he is rounding out the man’s story. That is, he has first described him leading the neogamoi home and here he meets his death in the somewhat similar way Arrian is at pains to parenthetically note Admetos on Alexander’s ship at Tyre before he writes up his death an epitaph a little later.

I always seem to be harping on about translation but , as I am sure you are aware, 'phalanx' need not be restricted to the Macedonian pikemen, nor even those plus the hypaspists, it has the sense of 'battle-line' factoring in the right wing cavalry could pull the broken front further right from Meleager's unit at the centre of the infantry line, but in any case the 'worst breach in the Macedonian battle-line' need not be synonymous with the 'centre which could not keep its front line in proper order', the fact that the 120 casualties are 'notable Macedonians' is surely a clue that this serious breach occurred elsewhere than the peasant pike phalanx.

No, it need not be restricted to the pikemen but, in this sense, it does mean the main infantry battle line. Everything from Alexander right has crossed the river and the ‘phalanx’ then had to follow. Whilst Arrian speaks of the Greeks attacking a gap in the phalanx’s “right wing”, he clearly indicates gaps elsewhere when describing the Macedonian centre and it is then that the Greeks – who extended beyond the hypaspists toward the Macedonian centre – made for worst one.

[agesilaos]

There is just too much that is 'digression' here; and I should know I started it!!Needless to say I do not agree with your interpretation, but it is by no means ridiculous nor even unreasonable I propose starting a new thread on the two versions of events at Halikarnnassos, obviously I will be defending Arrian and I presume you'll defend Diodoros (looks like I'm being orthodox here, mmh ) I'll wait a couple of days so you can muster your arguments and Xenophon can decide on his position (and so I can settle into Ashes' mode; a state of heightened anxiety and barely supressed expectation, add in the lurking certainty of disappointment and it really is like sex In England anyway)

I am still trying to figure out an animation for my interpretation of Issos so I would rather hang fire there; I have yet to see one on the glossy programmes that even makes sense, the one based on Rome Total war being the worst! Having said that i am not sure that the site will support 'Powerpoint'' if any moderators are reading...please let me know and if anyone else can suggest another platform,,?

[Xenophon]

I'm back to playing 'catch-up' I see ! I'm doing some more research before posting here in another day or two. Meanwhile, I have had a view on Halikarnassos for many years - even written a fictional version of the siege as a short story, but you'll have to wait for the thread....

Could we not re-activate the 'numbers' thread before dashing off to Halikarnassos ? ( now modern Bodrum in Turkey ....its harbour home to yachts......)

[agesilaos]

To re-animate a thread you have but to post on it; like a red rag to Bull (a missing article shurely?)

[Xenophon]

I shall start marshalling some basic evidence on numbers then.....

[Xenophon]

Time to sort out some odds and ends:

Agesilaos wrote

'Taxis' never meant anything as specific as a phalanx 'battalion'

I would strongly disagree. Whilst, as we have already discussed, Arrian uses the term in the sense of ‘unit’, and not just of the phalanx, I have analysed this usage. The word originates as meaning a formation or battle array in the generic sense, but can also mean a specific body or unit of soldiers, usually, but not always heavy infantry. The word occurs some 87 times (not 72 as the LSJ posits) in Arrian, and he only uses the term in these two ways. Of these 87 times, 50 or so refer to a brigade of the phalanx, generally Macedonian and probably about 2,000 strong. It is also used in the sense of ‘unit’ of ‘psiloi’/light troops twice, and of light javelinmen once, also archers once, twice to mean a unit of Hetairoi/Companion cavalry ( when they are split into two ‘units’ after Philotas’ death) and 6 times to refer to Hippotoxotai/horse archers.

It's other usage is in the generic sense of formation/battle array, some 24 times – often to describe a ‘phalanx’/battle line, both Macedonian and enemy – Persian and Indian e.g “phalagga en taxei”/phalanx in battle array/order, or “pezous en taxei”/infantry in battle array/formation, or Darius’ “phalaggos taxeis” at Gaugemala. We can even have a “taxis taxei”/ a phalanx unit in battle array. On one occasion ( Tyre) we see Craterus commanding a formation/taxeis of ships !

On a couple of occasions its use is slightly ambiguous where it is uncertain whether ‘units’ or formation/battle array is meant.

Continuity of office is, surely, a more likely scenario than abolition for no reason and then an equally mysterious re-institution.

We are not told that the Office of Commander of Hypaspists was ‘abolished’, simply that Alexander did not appoint anyone to this position after the death of Nicanor son of Parmenion. This high office remained vacant until Alexander’s death, and it would undoubtedly be a highly coveted vacancy among the ambitious ‘Diadochi’, so no surprise that Perdiccas used this 'plum'.

As for the coda on Atarrhias and Ephialtes, this is simply not in Arrian at all, as a glance at the Roos edition available on Perseus or the Loeb (p95 in the Brunt edition), will confirm. I can see two ways how this error may have crept into the Chinnock translation available at Alexander-sources.org,..............

Whether or not this is correct, and I tend to agree with you on this, really does not alter the point I made....

Addaios is slain leading Greeks? These cannot be the league troops, who served under their own commanders, and so must be mercenaries, presumably peltasts, though these seem to serve under their own commanders too (Addaios is one of ‘the Macedonians of no little repute’) since the same is true of Timandros’ men in your view above, this must mean that all the casualties fell on Ptolemy’s command, which was of Hypaspists, the phrase ‘Macedonians of no little repute’ is applied to the 120 slain at Issos who must be Hypaspists (peasant sarrisophoroi are hardly ‘men of repute’).
The solution that actually fits the evidence is that the Hypaspists responded to the sally from the triple-gate, their camp was probably opposite it; otherwise one has to posit Ptolemy wandering around the walls with his unit when he calls upon some light armed Greek mercenaries to repel the attack.

Since a Halicarnassus thread is now open, further discussion should probably take place there, but the Greek mercenaries are generally believed to be heavy infantry hoplites, for Alexander had a plentiful supply of Thracian and other Balkan peltasts.
In addition, it is a mistake to think that the units of sarissaphoroi contained only ‘peasants’, for the rankers were citizens and men of substance/landowners – the officers, in particular the entire front rank, were ‘quality’ and aristocracy which included the leading families of Macedon, thus the entire 120 could just as easily have come from the sarissa phalanx alone – though probably they were randomly distributed among all the Makedones who took part.
Addaios’ and Timander’s units were therefore likely to have been nominally 1,000 strong ‘taxeis’ Greek hoplites, nor is Addaios’ being a ‘chiliarchos’ an anachronism, as so many have claimed. I related above how Xenophon (Economica 4) refers to Greek Officers of this rank. It would only be an anachronism if Macedonian troops such as Hypaspists were being referred to, for according to Curtius V.2.3 ( also referred to above by me), Macedonians were only organised into chiliarchies at Sittakene/Susa some three years later.

I agree with Paralus’ comment:

“Unless one can conclusively prove error it is far better to accept the text as given.”

The weight of evidence and probability favour this conclusion, rather than that the troops were hypaspists on the basis that Ptolemy their commander was. Many times in Arrian senior Macedonians are given command of detachments, not necessarily their own units.

It is an odd position to take the evidence is scant and susceptible to many interpretations but ‘taxis’ was NEVER used for the Hypaspists. A mistaken dogmatism should be left to Mr Tombs.

I was not being dogmatic, rather I had carefully analysed Arrian’s usage of both ‘taxis’ and ‘hypaspists’ and cross referenced them. At no time does Arrian refer to ‘taxeis/units’ of Hypaspists. Initially they are simply referred to as such, and later as units of ‘chiliarchies’

Paralus wrote:

If Alexander saw fit to abolish the office of commander of the hypaspists on political grounds, there is little reason to think that Perdiccas would reverse it after scraping into the regency at Babylon.
Without going through the thread(s!), you've claimed that Alexander might never have appointed Neoptolemos as a replacement for Nikanor because this occurred at a time when he was breaking up large commands (to paraphrase). The reason the sources give for this (the Companion cavalry) was that Alexander would not again trust such a command to a single individual (such as the alleged traitorous Philotas). The direct implication is sedition. My point is that why would Perdikkas, an adherent of Alexander's 'policies', then reinstate it? As far as can be ascertained, he changed nothing else.

See above – there is no evidence the post was ‘abolished’, simply that Alexander left it vacant after Nicanor’s death – a useful High Office ‘plum’ for Perdiccas to allot....

edited to clarify:

[Paralus]

I noted earlier that after the death of Nicanor, Alexander appears only to have chiliarchy commanders of the (probably 4) units of Hypaspists, who invariably formed part of the 'Right Wing' under Alexander's command which was in keeping with the command structure of the 'Left Wing'.

I’m afraid that this does not follow. In all set piece battles the king commands the right and, until his murder, Parmenion the left. In every such situation we are informed that the hypaspists, under the command of Nikanor, held the right wing of the infantry phalanx whilst, on the left, Krateros commanded the left wing of the infantry phalanx. Thus the overall command of the right (and the army) was Alexander and the overall command of the left was Parmenion. Removal of the commander of the hypaspists means the right is no longer in keeping with the left. Moreover, it makes little military sense to remove a commander of the most important infantry unit of the most important wing.

[The assumption here being that the line infantry phalanx may well have become 'adulterated' with non-Macedonians by this time, but that the Hypaspists remained 'relatively' pure]

There exists no evidence whatsoever for any ‘adulteration’ of the Macedonian infantry phalanx by non-Macedonians. Until the reforms of Babylon these units remained absolutely Macedonian. At Opis the Macedonians’ clearly attested anger was directed the creation of parallel units and insertion of ‘barbarians’ into the Companion cavalry..

We are not told that the Office of Commander of Hypaspists was ‘abolished’, simply that Alexander did not appoint anyone to this position after the death of Nicanor son of Parmenion. […] A further reason is that following the "Philotas plot", Alexander likely resolved not to concentrate ALL his elite Macedonian infantry under one commander for political reasons, just as he split the 'Hetairoi' command (ArrianIII.27) […] See above – there is no evidence the post was ‘abolished’, simply that Alexander left it vacant after Nicanor’s death (ArrianIII.27)

And thus, when Alexander “divided the Companions’ battalion (τάξιν τῶν ἑταίρων) in two, as he would not have wanted one man, not even his dearest friend, to have command of so many horsemen” (Arr. 3.27.4) the position of commander of the Companion cavalry was not done away with? IF Alexander did not trust such a command to one individual he will have made plain that such a command no longer obtained. Your view that “a further reason” he appointed no commander of the hypaspists was due to “political reasons” can only mean those self-same reasons which underpinned the dual hypparchy decision. If so, there is no reason for Alexander not to remove the position – as he would do with the cavalry. It makes little sense to leave a senior command position unfilled indefinitely and it is more likely that said position was retired as was Philotas’ position and that Alexander will have made clear such a position was no longer available.

Much depends upon the reinforcement and reorganisation of infantry at Sittakene. You say that this resulted in there being four chiliarchies of hypaspists and that this command became unwieldy for a single officer yet Nikanor continued to command this for another year. Alexander seems not to have thought it beyond him though perhaps beyond others (and it was likely impolitic to remove his command). Although Curtius connects his eight chiliarchs to this infusion of troops, Arrian clearly relates that the infantry were distributed κατὰ ἔθνη, that is, by ‘tribe’ or ethnos. These infantry must then have been distributed amongst the phalanx untis which were commanded κατὰ ἔθνη. It remains a possibility that the ‘best’ of the existing phalanx may have won promotion to the hypaspists but this can only be speculation because we are not told such.

Now, to what we are not told. You are correct in that we are not told that the position of hypaspists commander was abolished. We are also not told that the commander of the companion cavalry was abolished. We are also not told that Alexander added cavalry from Bactria and Soghdia (thought they appear at Hydaspes). There are a great many things about which we are not told, to which we can add that we are also not told that Alexander had decided not to appoint a commander of the hypaspists after Nikanor. Conversely, we are told that Alexander reorganised the Companion cavalry organisation just as he did, it is suggested, the hypaspists. We are told that, in the wake of Kleitos’ murder in 328, Alexander altered the command of the Companions and why. On the command of the premier infantry unit of the army after Nikanor’s death, we are greeted with a resounding silence. There are two options: there was a replacement commander appointed and the sources – a la the Dahae – do not report this replacement (perhaps due to Ptolemy); Alexander, who’d expanded and reorganised the command of the unit a year before, decided that there be no commander of it due to “political reasons” and the unwieldy nature of this command and our sources do not report it. Of the two “we are not tolds”, given the explanation for the cavalry, the former seems far more likely to me.

Addaios’ and Timander’s units were therefore likely to have been nominally 1,000 strong ‘taxeis’ Greek hoplites, nor is Addaios’ being a ‘chiliarchos’ an anachronism, as so many have claimed. I related above how Xenophon (Economica 4) refers to Greek Officers of this rank. It would only be an anachronism if Macedonian troops such as Hypaspists were being referred to, for according to Curtius V.2.3 ( also referred to above by me), Macedonians were only organised into chiliarchies at Sittakene/Susa some three years later.

The main reason that Curtius’ reforms at Sittakene are seen as reforms to the hypaspists rests upon the creation of chiliarchies. The only infantry (aside from the archers) known to be so brigaded were the hypaspists and so these are hypaspists. The same logic obtains here: Adaios is unmistakably a chiliarch and he operates under the command of the Somatophylax Ptolemy (not Lagos). The assumption is that his unit is a unit of hypaspists. As Agesilaos has observed, the Greek mercenaries seem to have served under their own commanders and, up to this point, the Greek allies under Antigonos. As in the many other similar situations, it is more likely to me that the Somatophylax Ptolemy is given a detachment including hypaspists in much the same way as his famous namesake.

Pace your view on anachronism, Arrian (or his source) is far from incapable of such. At 1.24.3 Arrian has Parmenion sent to Sardis with a hipparchy of the Companions (τε ἑταίρων ἱππαρχίαν). This predates the reorganisation into hippachies by years. Unless these are “Greek” Companions, we unmistakably have an anachronism. Arrian has most likely taken this from his source (as with Thebes) just as he has Adaios. It is far more likely that Arrian (or, more likely his source) has referred to Adaios as an infantry chiliarch with the hypaspists – those Macedonian infantry so organised – in mind as his unit.

Just on the absence of notice for Neoptolemos, it is interesting that the inscriptional evidence from Prienne shows Antigonos conducting missions similar to Parmenion at this time. The entire absence of this in the literary record is most likely down to Ptolemy.

This high office remained vacant until Alexander’s death, and it would undoubtedly be a highly coveted vacancy among the ambitious ‘Diadochi’, so no surprise that Perdiccas used this 'plum'.

I doubt very much that any of the Diadochoi coveted Neoptiolemos’ position. No Diadoch was going to launch a bid for empire from this position. All the main players, after Perdikkas won the regency, sought bases of power from which to press their suit for power. None of Ptolemy, Antigonus, Leonnotas, Lysimachos, Eumenes, Peukestas, Peithon, et al was ever likely to seek the command of the hypaspists. Those below their level were of little consequence and unlikely to figure as anything more that the tools of the major players. In this regard Meleaghros, a jumped up ‘battalion’ commander, is instructive. No newly appointed commander of the hypaspists was ever going to bother these ambitious, grasping individuals.

Even should we agree that Neoptolemos was appointed by Perdikkas, such command did him absolutely no good. Neoptolemos was reduced to service under Eumenes after having been removed from his recent appointment. Here, again, it is most instructive that – were Neoptolemos appointed by Perdikkas as archypaspist – Perdikkas, on your logic above, does not appoint any successor to this command and so, in the invasion of Egypt, the hypaspists have no commander…. again.

[agesilaos]

There is one simple reason for most of Arrian's mentions of 'taxeis' referring to the phalanx and that is that the greater part of the foot consists of phalanx units; if someone is writing a narrative set in Athens one might expect 90% of references to the 'city' to refer to Athens but would one really be justified in concluding that 'city' means Athens but has another general meaning? Funnily enough you have not included Greek mercenaries as units that could be called 'taxeis'

E M Anson has been trying to make the case for Macedonian phalangites belonging to exactly the same class as Greek hoplites, and worse, the asthetairoi were armed as hoplites. This is really so much guff. Macedon was economically backward, those with wealth raised cavalry, the alleged hoplite class simply did not exist and it was for that reason that Philip could campaign in winter and raise many more troops that his hoplite foes. He mobilised the peasantry, armed and equipped them and then trained them in tactics which wiped out the hoplite model. He certainly did not want to convert his winning sarrissophoroi into defeatable hoplite farmers tied to their farmsteads, population movement and mass resettlement demonstrate that the Macedonian peasantry were not tied to the land but could go where ever the King wished, nor do we hear of any opposition to such movements from the natives, although resident Greeks bleat about synoicism.

I agree with Paralus’ comment:

“Unless one can conclusively prove error it is far better to accept the text as given.”


The weight of evidence and probability favour this conclusion, rather than that the troops were hypaspists on the basis that Ptolemy their commander was. Many times in Arrian senior Macedonians are given command of detachments, not necessarily their own units.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'an error' which needs proving; but you are certainly in error about senior Macedonians being given command of detachments being germane here, Ptolemy the Bodyguard is reacting to a surprise sally he has not been sent off on independent mission. An officer of the agema is more likely to be found encamped with the hypaspist corps than mercenaries.

What Alexander had many of was quality heavy infantry; at Gaugamela the mercenaries occupy a position analogous to lights on the left they are unlikely to be hoplites. Nor is a commander who disbands a fleet to save money likely to employ more expensive but less flexible troop type.

[Paralus]

I agree with Paralus’ comment:

“Unless one can conclusively prove error it is far better to accept the text as given.”


The weight of evidence and probability favour this conclusion, rather than that the troops were hypaspists on the basis that Ptolemy their commander was. Many times in Arrian senior Macedonians are given command of detachments, not necessarily their own units.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'an error' which needs proving;

It was actually me claiming that one should be certain of error. Perhaps I should address this along with other points related. Arrian uses 'somatopkylax' in its various forms for everything from one of the Seven (a Somatophylax), generically as a bodygurd/guard (for Indians and Macedonian governors) and for the agema (pace Xenophon whose equating of them interchangeably with the paides basilikoi I find unpersuasive). Sometimes he is clear as to what he means and other times, due to his reference to the agema as such, he is not. To Ptolemy at Halicarnassus.

Arrian refers to him as Πτολεμαῖος ὁ σωματοφύλαξ ὁ βασιλικός (1.22.4) and, in noting his death, Πτολεμαῖος ὁ σωματοφύλαξ ὁ βασιλικός (22.7). The Ptolemy of 1.24.1 is twice mentioned with his patronymic – the other being Issos at 2.10.7 – and this, as I’ve argued earlier, is the first indication that we have two different men.

That the Ptolemy of 1.22.4 is an officer of the agema, “reacting to a surprise sally” from the Tripylon Gate by leading hypaspists from their camp nearby, seems unlikely to me on two fronts. Firstly, at 1.22.1, Alexander is described as bringing up his siege engines up to the breach for yet another attack. Although Arrian says that the “Macedonian had never expected to encounter resistance” at the Triple Gate, it does not follow that there were no Macedonian troops stationed there – only that they did not expect “resistance”. In fact, it beggars belief that such a force was not stationed at such a gate for Alexander clearly expected to gain entry to the city in these assaults and troops in camp are of no use there. Secondly, if this Ptolemy were an officer of the agema, he should be with his king on foot for Alexander is clearly described as taking charge himself. Had he forced the breach he will have attacked – as at Tyre – with his infantry guard. There is no reason for his guard officers and troops to be laid up in camp. He is far more likely to be one of the Somatophylakes with a dedicated detachment for the Triple Gate. Had Alexander forced entry and drawn troops from the gate, these troops would enter al la Tyre. As it transpired, Ptolemy the Somatophylax was killed in the action at the gate.

So to the Ptolemy of Issos and the neogamoi. This Ptolemy cannot have been the same man as that above, if only for the reason that man is dead. But you suggest error on Arria'n's part and this is the “error” that I suggested you prove. As it turns out, you do not need to. Ptolemy son of Selukos is described as τῶν σωματοφυλάκων τῶν βασιλικῶν. Now, at 3.17.2 Alexander takes the “somatophylakes baslikoi and the hypaspists” (σωματοφύλακας τοὺς βασιλικοὺς καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς) along with other troops in a outflanking move on the Ouxioi. These are the agema and the hypaspists as he does elsewhere. Ptolemy son of Seleukos, a “somatophylakon basilikon”, is one of these and, as he co-commands the returning neogamoi, is an officer of same (the agema).

Ptolemy returns in time for the confrontation at Issos. Here, on your reading, we have two Ptolemys (even though we cannot have two earlier!):

at Issos, I would say that Ptolemy the taxiarch was listed sans patronym, whereas Ptolemy the son of Seleukos was not even named in the dispositions, which is usual for the individual leaders of the hypaspist chiliarchia or pentekosia (if one prefers); when it came to the casualties Arrian conflated the taxiarch and the somatophylax, perhaps aided by his memory of Ptolemy son of seleukos' mission in the company of Koinos and Meleager, the neighbours of Ptolemy the taxiarch's unit in the battle-line.

Arrian describes the Macedonian battle line and has a phalanx unit, stationed just to left of centre, commanded by Ptolemy. During the course of the battle he narrates a vicious battle at the “worst” of the breaches in the Macedonian line. Arrian then notes that here Ptolemy son of Seleukos fell as well as 120 Macedonians of note. Your view is that this means hypaspists and that Ptolemy son of Seleukos is a commander of same. This cannot be so. It is certain that Ptolemy commanded a brigade of infantry just left of centre and died there. Originially an officer of the agema (somatophylakon basilikon), he has returned with promotion to ‘brigade commander’. Arrian provides the clincher for this at 2.12.2. Here Arrian narrates the appointments Alexander made subsequent to the battle:

In place of Ptolemy son of Seleukos, who had died in the battle, Alexander appointed Polyperkhon son of Simmias as ‘battalion’ head.

Now Polyperkhon is only ever known to have commanded a phalanx battalion. Indeed he appears leading exactly that at Guagamela where he is positioned - surprise, surprise - just to the left of centre. It follows then that Ptolemy son of Seleukos was not commanding hypaspists at Issos and in fact was commanding a phalanx battalion. From there we can also conclude that the major breach in the Macedonian phalanx – and the one that Arrian describes as being so violent a fight – was just left of centre where Ptolemy son of Seleukos was posted and died.

This makes it far more than probable that Arrian is correct in that Ptolemy the Somatophylax died at Halicarnassus as he narrates. This man is not Ptolemy son of Seleukos.

[Xenophon]

What a long and rather rhetorical post, which adds no new evidence. I shall try to be as brief as possible in reply – but suspect that even ignoring parts, there is much to comment on..... .

Paralus wrote

I’m afraid that this does not follow. In all set piece battles the king commands the right and, until his murder, Parmenion the left. In every such situation we are informed that the hypaspists, under the command of Nikanor, held the right wing of the infantry phalanx whilst, on the left, Krateros commanded the left wing of the infantry phalanx. Thus the overall command of the right (and the army) was Alexander and the overall command of the left was Parmenion. Removal of the commander of the hypaspists means the right is no longer in keeping with the left. Moreover, it makes little military sense to remove a commander of the most important infantry unit of the most important wing.

Most of this is irrelevant, since after the death of Nicanor from illness in the Spring or early Summer of 330 after Gaugemala, the only major battle is Hydaspes, which does not conform to the ‘standard’ deployment. There, Alexander took a large detachment away some 17 miles to the LEFT flank to cross the river. On that occasion he seems to have commanded the Hypaspists as a whole in person. Evidently Alexander did not agree with you that not having a separate commander of the Hypaspists made “little military sense” – not even when the three chiliarchies are on detached service, when one of the Chiliarchs, Antiochus is given temporary command of all three. [Arrian 4.30.6 ]

Xenophon wrote:[The assumption here being that the line infantry phalanx may well have become 'adulterated' with non-Macedonians by this time, but that the Hypaspists remained 'relatively' pure]

There exists no evidence whatsoever for any ‘adulteration’ of the Macedonian infantry phalanx by non-Macedonians. Until the reforms of Babylon these units remained absolutely Macedonian. At Opis the Macedonians’ clearly attested anger was directed the creation of parallel units and insertion of ‘barbarians’ into the Companion cavalry..

It took me a while to find the original quote – way back in my first post over two weeks ago !! The basis of my assumption ( and I noted it as such, as well as the word “may”, so it is tentative only) is that the last re-inforcements of citizen troops we hear of Alexander receiving is on the road between Susa and Sittakene in 331 BC after Gaugemala, when 500 or so Companion cavalry and 6,000 sarissaphoroi arrive, along with 1,000 Peloponnesian cavalry, and 4,000 infantry, 600 Thracian cavalry and 3,000 Trallians/Thracians, having been sent for the year before. [Arian III.16; Curtius V.1.30; Diodorus XVII.65]. According to Arrian, all the 'horse' were 'attached' to the Companions, thus possibly adulterating them. However, I believe Arrian, who does not give a breakdown, has in mind only the 'Makedone' contingents.

The reason no more citizen troops arrive is likely to be in connection with growing threats at home – such as the Lamian war. Prior to that, the last occasion we are told that Macedonian re-inforcements arrive is at Gordium in 333 BC prior to Issus, most of whom are the returning newly-weds, sent home on leave. With steady attrition due to illness and injury for two years, how did Alexander keep his phalanx’s strength up? One possibility is that non-Macedonians may have been drafted into the phalanx, hence ‘assumption’ and ‘may’. Your similar assumption that the Macedonian infantry remained ethnically ‘pure’ is also just that – an assumption. As you say, we have no evidence beyond the complaints at Opis, which is hardly conclusive.
In any event it is not relevant to my point, which was that the Hypaspists represented a large number of elite troops - the cream of Alexander's infantry on whom he relied for his personal security. Having them loyal to an overall commander was thus a risk.

Much depends upon the reinforcement and reorganisation of infantry at Sittakene. You say that this resulted in there being four chiliarchies of hypaspists and that this command became unwieldy for a single officer yet Nikanor continued to command this for another year. Alexander seems not to have thought it beyond him though perhaps beyond others (and it was likely impolitic to remove his command). Although Curtius connects his eight chiliarchs to this infusion of troops, Arrian clearly relates that the infantry were distributed κατὰ ἔθνη, that is, by ‘tribe’ or ethnos. These infantry must then have been distributed amongst the phalanx untis which were commanded κατὰ ἔθνη. It remains a possibility that the ‘best’ of the existing phalanx may have won promotion to the hypaspists but this can only be speculation because we are not told such.

Firstly, the re-organisation of the Macedonian army probably did not take place overnight at Sittakene/Susa, but rather over a period of time, as is evidenced by the cavalry nomenclature, for the Iles/squadrons are firstly split into two ‘lochoi’, and later combined into units called ‘hipparchies’, which consisted of two of the old ‘Iles’.[ see below]

We agree that ultimately there were three chiliarchies of Hypaspists, plus the Agema, and this re-organisation can only really have occurred in the aftermath of Sittakene/Susa, when apparently the last major re-inforcement of ‘Makedones’ took place.

It is just plain wrong that Nicanor continued to command for another year. Gaugamela was fought around 1 Oct 331 BC, the re-inforcements likely arrived a month or two later. Nicanor died of illness a couple of months after that, in the Spring of 330 BC, during the pursuit of Darius ( and certainly no later than May-June ). Thus, depending on the length of his last illness, and when the re-organisation post Susa/Sittakene was complete, it is possible that Nicanor never commanded the expanded Hypaspists at all, or at best, for a short time only.

Now, to what we are not told. You are correct in that we are not told that the position of hypaspists commander was abolished. We are also not told that the commander of the companion cavalry was abolished. We are also not told that Alexander added cavalry from Bactria and Soghdia (thought they appear at Hydaspes). There are a great many things about which we are not told, to which we can add that we are also not told that Alexander had decided not to appoint a commander of the hypaspists after Nikanor. Conversely, we are told that Alexander reorganised the Companion cavalry organisation just as he did, it is suggested, the hypaspists. We are told that, in the wake of Kleitos’ murder in 328, Alexander altered the command of the Companions and why. On the command of the premier infantry unit of the army after Nikanor’s death, we are greeted with a resounding silence. There are two options: there was a replacement commander appointed and the sources – a la the Dahae – do not report this replacement (perhaps due to Ptolemy); Alexander, who’d expanded and reorganised the command of the unit a year before, decided that there be no commander of it due to “political reasons” and the unwieldy nature of this command and our sources do not report it. Of the two “we are not tolds”, given the explanation for the cavalry, the former seems far more likely to me.

Yes, I made the same point myself earlier about what we are not told – describing our knowledge as a line of dots, with large spaces between, which can be joined in more than one way. We should however stick to the evidence, such as it is. There are not two “options”, as you put it due to “we are not tolds”. Alexander did not re-organise “a year before” (see above for timings). There is ample circumstantial evidence that no overall commander was appointed following Nicanor’s death, which I expounded back on Nov 11 ( see page 2) – when I also suggested this thread had run its course.

Xenophon wrote on Nov 11:
For your part, you don't even address the fact that not only is Neoptolemos not referred to as commander of all the Hypaspists as successor to Nicanor in any of our main sources ( which is itself strange), but there is no reference to such a command at all after Nicanor - only individual chiliarchies - such as Antiochus having his own and two other chiliarchies under command at Arrian IV.30.6. If there was an overall commander, why isn't he in command, for these 3 chiliarchies are all the Hypaspists bar the Agema ?

Instead, you are 'certain' that he was appointed by Alexander to a rank that probably didn't exist, on the basis of a single ambiguous sentence of Plutarch, and but for that sentence we would doubtless accept that there was no overall commander after Nicanor. To interpret that ambiguity as referring to when N. said his bon mot as you do sets it against our other sources who make no mention of N. or even such a position. To interpret it as referring to N. being 'archihypaspist' after Alexander's death is consistent with our other evidence. Whilst we cannot be certain, the latter seems more probable and logical, does it not ?

The evidence, such as it is, is clear:

1. No mention of ‘archihypaspist’ during Alexander’s reign in our main sources, and even Plutarch does not use the term in his ‘Alexander’ [ c.f. Agesilaos’ comments on terminology describing Nicanor], only in his ‘Eumenes’.

2. No mention or evidence of ANY overall Hypaspist commander after Nicanor, only individual chiliarchs.We are regularly told of changes in command of the taxeis of the phalanx, but not a word about a commander of the Hypaspists after Nicanor.

3. We have an occasion when the three non-Agema chiliarchies are detached (i.e. the Corps of Hypaspists Basilikoi) – and commanded by one of the Chiliarchs temporarily (Antiochus –Arrian IV.30.6). Where is the purported overall commander? If he existed but was absent, would this not have been commented on, as elsewhere in Arrian when commanders are absent ?

4. We learn at I.8.4 ( Thebes) that the full title of all non-Agema Hypaspists is ‘Hypaspists Basilikoi’ and again at IV.24.10 when Ptolemy takes “a third of the Hypaspists Basilikoi” ( i.e. one chiliarchy ). Again at Hydaspes, we have “Hypaspists Basilikoi under Seleucus, near these the Agema, then the ‘other’ Hypaspists" i.e. those not commanded by Seleucus, which here could mean one or two chiliarchies – Arrian has simply not given their full title for variation, as at I.8.3 and I.8.4. Once again, no overall commander ( other than Alexander himself).

Your “options” of “what we are not told” are not options at all, because we are told, albeit indirectly. There is both negative and positive evidence for there being no overall commander after Nicanor. If our sources don’t comment on this situation, it may be because they don’t care to guess at Alexander’s reasons, ultimately known only to himself. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever for your preferred ‘option’ – and you have to ignore the actual evidence, not addressed back on Nov 11, nor even referred to by you here. Balance of probability dictates that Neoptolemos was not ‘archihypaspist’ during A.’s reign – a term apparently not in use during Alexander’s lifetime – and that no overall commander of Hypaspists existed after Nicanor.

Pace your view on anachronism, Arrian (or his source) is far from incapable of such. At 1.24.3 Arrian has Parmenion sent to Sardis with a hipparchy of the Companions (τε ἑταίρων ἱππαρχίαν). This predates the reorganisation into hippachies by years. Unless these are “Greek” Companions, we unmistakably have an anachronism. Arrian has most likely taken this from his source (as with Thebes) just as he has Adaios. It is far more likely that Arrian (or, more likely his source) has referred to Adaios as an infantry chiliarch with the hypaspists – those Macedonian infantry so organised – in mind as his unit.

Again, I would not be so certain if I were you !! The term ‘hipparchias’/commander of cavalry dates back to Xenophon ( Cavalry Commander III.13 for example ) and also pseudo-Xenophon ‘Constitution of Athens’ to have a generic meaning of “a cavalry command” thus pre-dating Alexander.[ c.f. the word ‘taxis’]. Thus at I.24.3 the word may be being used correctly in its generic sense so that Parmenion was given “a force consisting of a cavalry command of the Companions, the Thessalian cavalry.... “

Much later, when the ‘iles’ were combined, they may have been originally called a ‘tetrarchy’ ( i.e. 4 ‘lochoi') commanded by a ‘Hipparch’ ( Arrian speaks of the other cavalry being organised into ‘tetrarchies’ at III.18.5 ), and later [after the crossing of the Oxus III.29.7] uses the word ‘hipparchy’/cavalry command in its new specific, or technical, sense of ‘cavalry command’ consisting of two iles/squadrons to describe this unit.The units would appear to be given their new title of "a cavalry command" at this time.

Thus there need not be, and probably isn’t, an anachronism here!

Xenophon wrote:This high office remained vacant until Alexander’s death, and it would undoubtedly be a highly coveted vacancy among the ambitious ‘Diadochi’, so no surprise that Perdiccas used this 'plum'.

I doubt very much that any of the Diadochoi coveted Neoptiolemos’ position. No Diadoch was going to launch a bid for empire from this position. All the main players, after Perdikkas won the regency, sought bases of power from which to press their suit for power. None of Ptolemy, Antigonus, Leonnotas, Lysimachos, Eumenes, Peukestas, Peithon, et al was ever likely to seek the command of the hypaspists. Those below their level were of little consequence and unlikely to figure as anything more that the tools of the major players.

A misunderstanding here, I was using the term in its loosest, most general sense rather than meaning the rivals for Alexander’s position. Command of the King’s Guard was still a prestigious and senior position, undoubtedly coveted, not to mention having some power and influence, even if subordinate to the ‘major players’. Hence a useful – and vacant- “plum” for Perdiccas to award.

[Xenophon]

I broke this up, to avoid overly lengthy posts:

Paralus wrote:

Xenophon wrote:Addaios’ and Timander’s units were therefore likely to have been nominally 1,000 strong ‘taxeis’ Greek hoplites, nor is Addaios’ being a ‘chiliarchos’ an anachronism, as so many have claimed. I related above how Xenophon (Economica 4) refers to Greek Officers of this rank. It would only be an anachronism if Macedonian troops such as Hypaspists were being referred to, for according to Curtius V.2.3 ( also referred to above by me), Macedonians were only organised into chiliarchies at Sittakene/Susa some three years later.

The main reason that Curtius’ reforms at Sittakene are seen as reforms to the hypaspists rests upon the creation of chiliarchies. The only infantry (aside from the archers) known to be so brigaded were the hypaspists and so these are hypaspists.

This is not correct. Curtius [V.2.3]does not state which infantry are organised into chiliarchies/1,000 strong sub-units – the implication is all, including the phalanx. Certainly the later manuals have two chiliarchies making up a phalanx unit. Previously, the sub-units had been 500 strong.

The same logic obtains here: Adaios is unmistakably a chiliarch and he operates under the command of the Somatophylax Ptolemy (not Lagos). The assumption is that his unit is a unit of hypaspists.

...which must be a false assumption, for as I said, such an assumption actually creates an anachronism. ( see quote being commented on)\
Not only that but the rank of ‘chiliarch’ had existed since at least Xenophon’s time, and would NOT be an anachronism applied to Greek heavy infantry. By the way, I earlier responded to Agesilaos’ suggestion that Greek allies/mercenaries were light peltasts by saying they were more likely ‘Hoplites’/heavy infantry, from their positions in the battle array and role. In fact we are specifically told so at Arrian III.18.4 where Parmenion is sent to Persis:
“After this, Alexander despatched Parmenion with the baggage, the Thessalian cavalry, the Greek allies, the mercenary auxiliaries, and the rest of the more heavily armed soldiers/oplimenos, to march into Persis along the carriage road leading into that country. He himself took the Macedonian infantry, the Companion cavalry, the light cavalry used for skirmishing, the Agrianians, and the
archers and made a forced march through the mountains.”
( my emphasis). The Greeks are ‘hoplites’/ heavy infantry, just as we might expect.

As Agesilaos has observed, the Greek mercenaries seem to have served under their own commanders and, up to this point, the Greek allies under Antigonos. As in the many other similar situations, it is more likely to me that the Somatophylax Ptolemy is given a detachment including hypaspists in much the same way as his famous namesake.

Yes, individual Greek units, can serve under their own commanders and if the Greek allies serve under Antigonus as overall commander, then it would seem likely that the various units of Greek mercenaries did too – Ptolemy the Somatophylax in this case.

What suggests ‘Hypaspists’ here? Only the word ‘chilarchos’, and as we have seen, it pre-dates Alexander’s time, is not used solely of ‘Hypaspists’ – you yourself have referred to that fact, and can be used of Greek hoplites, who are ‘heavy’ troops, as is inferred at Arrian I.22.3 when the troops concerned under Addaios and Timander are supported by light infantry.
Worse still, it is your assumption that actually creates the supposed anachronism, when there is an explanation which does not do so, and fits the known facts far better than an incorrect assumption, based on incomplete information .

Moreover, which is more likely, that Hypaspists would be with the main breach assault under Alexander, as they are on every other siege assault, or that they would be passively guarding the Tripolion gate, not expecting attack, (“where the Macedonians least expected it” ); surely a task for second-line troops such as the Greek heavy infantry?

Further discussion should perhaps await the 'Halicarnassus' thread ?

[Xenophon]

There is one simple reason for most of Arrian's mentions of 'taxeis' referring to the phalanx and that is that the greater part of the foot consists of phalanx units; if someone is writing a narrative set in Athens one might expect 90% of references to the 'city' to refer to Athens but would one really be justified in concluding that 'city' means Athens but has another general meaning? Funnily enough you have not included Greek mercenaries as units that could be called 'taxeis'

Not sure what your point is here - I have previously agreed that 'taxis' in the dictionary sense can have multiple meanings as per the LSJ you quoted. My point was that Arrian, with whom we are here concerned, only used it in two senses and the vast majority in the sense of 'unit' of the phalanx, with a further usage as 'battle array/formation'. In my count, I did not differentiate between the various 'taxeis'/units/brigades of the phalanx,whether Macedonian or Greek and for example it includes usages such as "pezon taxeis" [I.19.8] where it is unclear if the reference is to Macedonians or Greeks or both. That Greek units could be referred to as 'taxeis' is shown by [V.25.2] where Alexander addresses the leaders/Hegemones of the Macedonian and Greek 'taxewv'.

E M Anson has been trying to make the case for Macedonian phalangites belonging to exactly the same class as Greek hoplites, and worse, the asthetairoi were armed as hoplites. This is really so much guff. Macedon was economically backward, those with wealth raised cavalry, the alleged hoplite class simply did not exist and it was for that reason that Philip could campaign in winter and raise many more troops that his hoplite foes. He mobilised the peasantry, armed and equipped them and then trained them in tactics which wiped out the hoplite model. He certainly did not want to convert his winning sarrissophoroi into defeatable hoplite farmers tied to their farmsteads, population movement and mass resettlement demonstrate that the Macedonian peasantry were not tied to the land but could go where ever the King wished, nor do we hear of any opposition to such movements from the natives, although resident Greeks bleat about synoicism.

As I have mentioned before, the Macedonian phalanx were not really 'peasants' with all that the word implies. Rather they were more like well-off 'yeomen'.

I agree with Paralus’ comment:

“Unless one can conclusively prove error it is far better to accept the text as given.”


The weight of evidence and probability favour this conclusion, rather than that the troops were hypaspists on the basis that Ptolemy their commander was. Many times in Arrian senior Macedonians are given command of detachments, not necessarily their own units.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'an error' which needs proving; but you are certainly in error about senior Macedonians being given command of detachments being germane here, Ptolemy the Bodyguard is reacting to a surprise sally he has not been sent off on independent mission. An officer of the agema is more likely to be found encamped with the hypaspist corps than mercenaries.

Meaning if a supposed 'error' cannot be demonstrated, then the text should be accepted as is.

Ptolemy's task in this instance is to 'mask' the Tripolion gate against a sally by the numerous garrison, and no fighting is anticipated. ( see previous response to Paralus)We might expect such a task to be allotted to 'second-line' Greek Hoplites, whilst we would expect the Hypaspists to be in the thick of the assault on the breach with Alexander, as they are at every other siege. According to our sources Alexander seems to only have had a single encampment on a rare piece of level ground about half a mile from the city's N.E. wall.

What Alexander had many of was quality heavy infantry; at Gaugamela the mercenaries occupy a position analogous to lights on the left they are unlikely to be hoplites. Nor is a commander who disbands a fleet to save money likely to employ more expensive but less flexible troop type.

These suppositions are incorrect, we are specifically told that both the Greek allies and mercenaries are 'oplimenos'/hoplites at III.18.4, quoted in my answer to Paralus. Given the swarms of agrianes, paeonians and other Balkan peltasts available, what Alexander needed from the Greeks was what they had in abundance - heavy infantry hoplites.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

This makes it far more than probable that Arrian is correct in that Ptolemy the Somatophylax died at Halicarnassus as he narrates. This man is not Ptolemy son of Seleukos.

This time I really shall be brief! I would endorse Paralus' view that Ptolemy the Somatophylax was not the same person as Ptolemy son of Seleucus.

....and just to add to the fun, we hear of a second Ptolemy at Halicarnassus, in addition to Ptolemy the Somatophylax. He is left in command of 3,000 infantry and 200 cavalry to garrison Halicarnassus and Caria generally, and keep an eye on the two Persian-held citadels [I.23] Without an 'identifier' it is impossible to say which one he is, but given such a relatively lowly command, probably not son of Seleucus or Lagos.....

[Paralus]

Another sixty-four posts….

Paralus wrote:

The main reason that Curtius’ reforms at Sittakene are seen as reforms to the hypaspists rests upon the creation of chiliarchies. The only infantry (aside from the archers) known to be so brigaded were the hypaspists and so these are hypaspists.

This is not correct. Curtius [V.2.3]does not state which infantry are organised into chiliarchies/1,000 strong sub-units – the implication is all, including the phalanx. Certainly the later manuals have two chiliarchies making up a phalanx unit. Previously, the sub-units had been 500 strong.

The same logic obtains here: Adaios is unmistakably a chiliarch and he operates under the command of the Somatophylax Ptolemy (not Lagos). The assumption is that his unit is a unit of hypaspists.

...which must be a false assumption, for as I said, such an assumption actually creates an anachronism. ( see quote being commented on)

I’m afraid not. The argument that the infantry reforms of Sittakene relate to the hypaspists corps rest, in the greater part, upon the fact that chiliarchies are created. On your own logic, if "the implication is all, including the phalanx”, the Macedonian phalanx is reduced to four units commanded by eight chiliarchs (not including hypaspists). There is no attestation of phalangite chiliarchs in Alexander’s army.

So, as I say, the main reason for supposing this reform refers to the hypaspists is the creation of chiliarchs. The only attested Macedonian infantry so brigaded in Alexander’s army are the hypaspists. Your “later manuals” are simply that: not relevant here.

Paralus wrote

I’m afraid that this does not follow. In all set piece battles the king commands the right and, until his murder, Parmenion the left. In every such situation we are informed that the hypaspists, under the command of Nikanor, held the right wing of the infantry phalanx whilst, on the left, Krateros commanded the left wing of the infantry phalanx. Thus the overall command of the right (and the army) was Alexander and the overall command of the left was Parmenion. Removal of the commander of the hypaspists means the right is no longer in keeping with the left. Moreover, it makes little military sense to remove a commander of the most important infantry unit of the most important wing.

Most of this is irrelevant, since after the death of Nicanor from illness in the Spring or early Summer of 330 after Gaugemala, the only major battle is Hydaspes, which does not conform to the ‘standard’ deployment. There, Alexander took a large detachment away some 17 miles to the LEFT flank to cross the river. On that occasion he seems to have commanded the Hypaspists as a whole in person. Evidently Alexander did not agree with you that not having a separate commander of the Hypaspists made “little military sense” – not even when the three chiliarchies are on detached service, when one of the Chiliarchs, Antiochus is given temporary command of all three. [Arrian 4.30.6 ]

A “detachment” some 13,000 strong including two phalanx divisions (one of your “training” missions for the somatophylakes?) It is clear that whilst he took the hypaspists a whole, he did not command them in person in the actual battle. The narrative has the hypaspists as part of the phalanx centre and Alexander’s cavalry charge as an entirely separate action.

As far as Nikanor is concerned, he died late in the spring the year following Gaugamela. Curtius places the reorganisation of the hypaspists (?) following the departure from Babylon. You are correct that “the re-organisation of the Macedonian army probably did not take place overnight at Sittakene/Susa”. What did happen at Sittakene is the reorganisation of a section of the Macedonian infantry – not the entire army (the splitting of the Companion cavalry comes later as does the addition of Asian cavalry for example) – unless you wish to dismiss your own oft referred to passage of Curtius. After this reorganisation (and expansion of the hypaspists to a size not conducive to one man’s control), Nikanor is still referred to unequivocally as commander of the hypaspists.

My point on the balance of army command still remains. You, yourself, claimed that the removal of a commander of the hypaspists brought the command structure of the right into balance with that of the left. This, as I’ve shown, is a nonsense. That the right required a commander of the infantry is surely indicated by the fact that the left of the phalanx required such. More so in fact. The left, in all the major battles related, is the ‘holding’ wing – no decisive cavalry charge here – as opposed to the right where the commander in chief launches the decisive cavalry charge. Yet it is only the left that requires a commander of the infantry as well as an overall commander, not the right? My view is that the premier infantry corps of the army 'led up' the infantry line and so too did its commander.

At the time Alexander had no idea that the only other ‘major’ battle would be Hydaspes. I do not think he will have removed the commander of the premier infantry unit of the right.

Again, I would not be so certain if I were you !! The term ‘hipparchias’/commander of cavalry dates back to Xenophon ( Cavalry Commander III.13 for example ) and also pseudo-Xenophon ‘Constitution of Athens’ to have a generic meaning of “a cavalry command” thus pre-dating Alexander.[ c.f. the word ‘taxis’]. Thus at I.24.3 the word may be being used correctly in its generic sense so that Parmenion was given “a force consisting of a cavalry command of the Companions, the Thessalian cavalry.... “

Much later, when the ‘iles’ were combined, they may have been originally called a ‘tetrarchy’ ( i.e. 4 ‘lochoi') commanded by a ‘Hipparch’ ( Arrian speaks of the other cavalry being organised into ‘tetrarchies’ at III.18.5 ), and later [after the crossing of the Oxus III.29.7] uses the word ‘hipparchy’/cavalry command in its new specific, or technical, sense of ‘cavalry command’ consisting of two iles/squadrons to describe this unit.The units would appear to be given their new title of "a cavalry command" at this time.

Thus there need not be, and probably isn’t, an anachronism here!

You wish to relate much to classical Greek terminology – “Xenophontic” terminology. You problem is that we are dealing with a Macedonian army, not Greek and, even more pertinently, Macedonian sources - not Xenophon (the Athenian Spartiate). The terms used here in Arrian’s sources are used by Macedonians hence ‘chiliarch’ and ‘hipparchy’ refer to a Macedonian nomenclature; not classical Greek. As much as you would love to see Arrian’s use of ἱππαρχίαν as “a cavalry command” throughout, this is simply desperate special pleading. This is clearly a Macedonian term for a unit of the Companion cavalry. Arrian uses exactly the same word at 1.24.3 as he does throughout the rest of his work and it is clearly used anachronistically.

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote:

This makes it far more than probable that Arrian is correct in that Ptolemy the Somatophylax died at Halicarnassus as he narrates. This man is not Ptolemy son of Seleukos.

This time I really shall be brief! I would endorse Paralus' view that Ptolemy the Somatophylax was not the same person as Ptolemy son of Seleucus.

Indeed. And that all else follows: the main breach in the phalanx at Issos was at Ptolemy son of Seleukos' 'battalion', just left of centre, and that 120 "notable" Macedonains fell there with him. An officer of the hypaspists here he was not.

....and just to add to the fun, we hear of a second Ptolemy at Halicarnassus, in addition to Ptolemy the Somatophylax. He is left in command of 3,000 infantry and 200 cavalry to garrison Halicarnassus and Caria generally, and keep an eye on the two Persian-held citadels [I.23] Without an 'identifier' it is impossible to say which one he is, but given such a relatively lowly command, probably not son of Seleucus or Lagos.....

Definitely neither of the above: he is left behind and news of his and Assander's victory over the 'hold-outs' at Halicarnassus reached Alexander in Cilicia just prior to Issos (2.5.7).