pothos.org

Paralus wrote:

marcus wrote:Which does make perfect sense because they are supposed to be the king's bodyguard - if they are off commanding other troops, then they can't remain close to the king and do their job.

Precisely the job of the agema of the hypaspists; not to say the rest of them as well. It is why they are stationed with the companion cavalry and why they are attested with him on foot. At Issus they are described as such as Arrian rolls over the line during the assembly manoeuvres: the hypaspists abut the companion cavalry even though Alexander extends his line further right. Hephaestion, if he were somatophylax at the time of Guagamela and commanding the agema from horseback, will still have been discharging the remit of somatophylax.

Although, if I recall correctly, the agema of hypaspists is only stated as being close to the king in as much as the hypaspists cover the 'gap' between the pezhetairoi battalions and the hetairoi. I don't think there is any explicit statement that they stay in close touch with the king to the detriment of holding their position. So, for example, when Alexander takes the hetairoi off on their slanting attack directly into the Persian army, the agema of hypaspists is not stated as running alongside.

Heck(el ), I forget who's arguing what, or whom I agree with. Just trying to keep up (as the hypaspists likely said as they puffed along in the dust of the hetairoi horses ...)

ATB

marcus wrote:[Although, if I recall correctly, the agema of hypaspists is only stated as being close to the king in as much as the hypaspists cover the 'gap' between the pezhetairoi battalions and the hetairoi. I don't think there is any explicit statement that they stay in close touch with the king to the detriment of holding their position. So, for example, when Alexander takes the hetairoi off on their slanting attack directly into the Persian army, the agema of hypaspists is not stated as running alongside.

The hypaspists always abut the companion cavalry - which, of course sees them at the far right of the infantry line. Rather than "fill the gap" they provide the link between the phalanx and the cavalry. As the king's guard their remit is to protect and stay in contact with him. This is obviously not always possible but, should the king "charge" forward, they will lead the phalanx in his direction. I've quoted Arrian's description of that at Guagamela above. Issus too will have seen similar (1.10 ff):

But when they came within range of darts, Alexander himself and those around him, being posted on the right wing, dashed first into the river with a run, in order to alarm the Persians by the rapidity of their onset, and by coming sooner to close conflict to avoid being much injured by the archers. And it turned out just as Alexander had conjectured; for as soon as the battle became a hand-to-hand one, the part of the Persian army stationed on the left wing was put to rout; and here Alexander and his men won a brilliant victory. But the Grecian mercenaries serving under Darius attacked the Macedonians at the point where they saw their phalanx especially disordered. For the Macedonian phalanx had been broken and had disjoined towards the right wing, because Alexander had dashed into the river with eagerness, and engaging in a hand-to-hand conflict was already driving back the Persians posted there; but the Macedonians in the centre had not prosecuted their task with equal eagerness; and finding many parts of the bank steep and precipitous, they were unable to preserve the front of the phalanx in the same line.

Now, "those around him, being posted on the right wing" will be, of course, the Companions. That there is a break in the phalanx towards the right though, will indicate that the hypaspists, also part of those with him on the right, have followed him into and across the river to engage in "hand to hand combat". They most likely drew along Coenus' men. Somewhere, on that right side, the river prevented the phalanx taxeis from "prosecuting their task" with the same vigour as the "Guards". Hence the gap.

That which created it at Guagamela was the furious Persian assault on the Macedonian left.

The guards regiments were, in the Macedonian army, a bit like the US airborne in WWII: they performed all sorts of missions quite apart from leaping from aircraft to get behind the enemy lines. It is why Alexander seemingly takes them on just about every assault and why these are the troops that cross with him to take on Porus. They were quite proud of their years of service as well. As Justin (14.6.7) writes:

But the Argyraspids disdained all leaders in comparison with Alexander, and thought service under other generals dishonourable to the memory of so great a monarch.

To add to the confusion, there is a furious agrument over the arming of these troops. Markle (and Heckel as well recently) have argued that they were armed as hoplites so as to be more agile than the phalanx. Both go so far as to suggest that they may have played the role of hamippoi. I'd think that was more the Agrianes' go myself.

marcus wrote: Heck(el ), I forget who's arguing what, or whom I agree with. Just trying to keep up (as the hypaspists likely said as they puffed along in the dust of the hetairoi horses ...)

That's a good one! Very funny!

Fiona

Yes - Marcus does indeed have a unique sense of humour at times.

Witty sir!

A slightly OT comment here:

Hamippoi, Argyraspids, hypaspists, hetairoi, somatophylax, ile basilike, agema ...

Yes, I'm familiar with most of these words, especially when they feature in a thread such as this, but I know of other military terms and, to be absolutely honest, when I read many of them in articles and the sources all I see is bla-bla-bla of the bla-ba. Do you know how I find the meaning? I Google the word!

Marcus, wouldn't a Pothos page with definitions of military terms in the sources be a good idea? Or I am I the only doofus who doesn't instantly recognize the meaning? And even if I am, wouldn't it be useful for beginners?

Best regards,

Amyntoros - who loves to encourage other people to write for the site.

amyntoros wrote:A slightly OT comment here:

Hamippoi, Argyraspids, hypaspists, hetairoi, somatophylax, ile basilike, agema ...

Yes, I'm familiar with most of these words, especially when they feature in a thread such as this, but I know of other military terms and, to be absolutely honest, when I read many of them in articles and the sources all I see is bla-bla-bla of the bla-ba. Do you know how I find the meaning? I Google the word!

Marcus, wouldn't a Pothos page with definitions of military terms in the sources be a good idea? Or I am I the only doofus who doesn't instantly recognize the meaning? And even if I am, wouldn't it be useful for beginners?

Best regards,

Amyntoros - who loves to encourage other people to write for the site.

I'm sure that could be done - happy to do so, just as soon as I've worked out the editing of this new site (waiting for a quick training session from Thomas).

ATB

Paralus wrote:

marcus wrote:[Although, if I recall correctly, the agema of hypaspists is only stated as being close to the king in as much as the hypaspists cover the 'gap' between the pezhetairoi battalions and the hetairoi. I don't think there is any explicit statement that they stay in close touch with the king to the detriment of holding their position. So, for example, when Alexander takes the hetairoi off on their slanting attack directly into the Persian army, the agema of hypaspists is not stated as running alongside.

The hypaspists always abut the companion cavalry - which, of course sees them at the far right of the infantry line. Rather than "fill the gap" they provide the link between the phalanx and the cavalry. As the king's guard their remit is to protect and stay in contact with him. This is obviously not always possible but, should the king "charge" forward, they will lead the phalanx in his direction. I've quoted Arrian's description of that at Guagamela above. Issus too will have seen similar (1.10 ff):

But when they came within range of darts, Alexander himself and those around him, being posted on the right wing, dashed first into the river with a run, in order to alarm the Persians by the rapidity of their onset, and by coming sooner to close conflict to avoid being much injured by the archers. And it turned out just as Alexander had conjectured; for as soon as the battle became a hand-to-hand one, the part of the Persian army stationed on the left wing was put to rout; and here Alexander and his men won a brilliant victory. But the Grecian mercenaries serving under Darius attacked the Macedonians at the point where they saw their phalanx especially disordered. For the Macedonian phalanx had been broken and had disjoined towards the right wing, because Alexander had dashed into the river with eagerness, and engaging in a hand-to-hand conflict was already driving back the Persians posted there; but the Macedonians in the centre had not prosecuted their task with equal eagerness; and finding many parts of the bank steep and precipitous, they were unable to preserve the front of the phalanx in the same line.

Now, "those around him, being posted on the right wing" will be, of course, the Companions. That there is a break in the phalanx towards the right though, will indicate that the hypaspists, also part of those with him on the right, have followed him into and across the river to engage in "hand to hand combat". They most likely drew along Coenus' men. Somewhere, on that right side, the river prevented the phalanx taxeis from "prosecuting their task" with the same vigour as the "Guards". Hence the gap.

That which created it at Guagamela was the furious Persian assault on the Macedonian left.

The guards regiments were, in the Macedonian army, a bit like the US airborne in WWII: they performed all sorts of missions quite apart from leaping from aircraft to get behind the enemy lines. It is why Alexander seemingly takes them on just about every assault and why these are the troops that cross with him to take on Porus. They were quite proud of their years of service as well. As Justin (14.6.7) writes:

But the Argyraspids disdained all leaders in comparison with Alexander, and thought service under other generals dishonourable to the memory of so great a monarch.

To add to the confusion, there is a furious agrument over the arming of these troops. Markle (and Heckel as well recently) have argued that they were armed as hoplites so as to be more agile than the phalanx. Both go so far as to suggest that they may have played the role of hamippoi. I'd think that was more the Agrianes' go myself.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I only excuse myself on the grounds that I haven't read the battle descriptions for 3 or 4 years, and so my memory is a bit rusty. To say "fill the gap" was too flippant, though, even for one with such a rusty memory - call it my not finding the right turn of phrase when I wanted it ...

Having said that, I suppose there remains the question of whether they would have kept up when Alexander took the hetairoi (= Companions, Amyntoros ) off in pursuit of Darius ... and whether they were therefore in the close vicinity when the same returned to support Parmenion and ran into the fleeing Persians, at which time Hephaistion is said to have been wounded.

Thank you for your kind words. I do try to be witty occasionally ... and occasionally I succeed, perhaps?

ATB

I'd say that you succeed.

Although I'm a new member, I had been lurking for awhile, reading posts and learning a lot about ATG and his world. ( My interest in ATG came about because of Stone's movie. Plus I love a good mystery!) You're a rather intimidating bunch -- but I mean that in a nice way! I mean intimidating as far as knowledge of ATG is concerned. I'm pretty much a newbie in that dept.

However, I did score 13/15 on the quiz Flunked out on "Ecbatana" and "Krataros" for answers.

marcus wrote:[ To say "fill the gap" was too flippant, though, even for one with such a rusty memory - call it my not finding the right turn of phrase when I wanted it

Having said that, I suppose there remains the question of whether they would have kept up when Alexander took the hetairoi (= Companions, Amyntoros :D ) off in pursuit of Darius ... and whether they were therefore in the close vicinity when the same returned to support Parmenion and ran into the fleeing Persians, at which time Hephaistion is said to have been wounded.

I suppose the point is that the job was a little more than Selley's "no more gaps"!

In the "pursuit" it is a matter of how fast the hetairoi are actually riding. Arrian describes them, from memory, as "pressing the pursuit" or some such. It may not, given the numbers on the field and the mess it will have been in, have been at pace. It is likely, too, that the Agrianes will have followed, dispatching those they found.

Alexander's hypaspist unit kept their corporate identity and they, seemingly, protected the reputation of that identity about as furiously as they did their king. They were obviously proud of, and jealously guarded, the position they'd reached. I'd suggest it was the pinnacle of the "average draftee's" career. That term is probably a little disparaging. EM Anson's description of them as Macedonia's "professional citizen soldiers" is more on the money.

There are other descriptions of Alexander pursuing Darius where he dismounts some of his cavalry and mounts some of his "infantry". It would seem rather doubtlful that these would be the average footman in the taxeis. What is more likely is that he is mounting are the royal hypaspists who, as sons of the nobility, will be passingly familiar with horses and the riding of them having served as pages.

I have not the time to find the passages as I'm off to the office. They occurr in the aftermath of Gaugamela.

Paralus wrote:There are other descriptions of Alexander pursuing Darius where he dismounts some of his cavalry and mounts some of his "infantry". It would seem rather doubtlful that these would be the average footman in the taxeis. What is more likely is that he is mounting are the royal hypaspists who, as sons of the nobility, will be passingly familiar with horses and the riding of them having served as pages.

I have not the time to find the passages as I'm off to the office. They occurr in the aftermath of Gaugamela.

I know exactly when you mean - it is for the last leg of the pursuit of Darius in Parthia, when Alexander takes a shortcut across the stretch of desert. He does indeed, as you say, dismount the cavalry and mount the fittest of the infantry (and if I recall correctly it is even explicitly stated that they are the infantry who were able to keep up).

ATB

Clio wrote:

Although I'm a new member, I had been lurking for awhile, reading posts and learning a lot about ATG and his world. ( My interest in ATG came about because of Stone's movie. Plus I love a good mystery!) You're a rather intimidating bunch -- but I mean that in a nice way! I mean intimidating as far as knowledge of ATG is concerned. I'm pretty much a newbie in that dept.

However, I did score 13/15 on the quiz Flunked out on "Ecbatana" and "Krataros" for answers.

Hello Clio!
You must like Hephaistion, you've learned a lot about him already. What have you been reading, and what did you like about the movie?
Fiona

Fiona wrote:
Hello Clio!
You must like Hephaistion, you've learned a lot about him already. What have you been reading, and what did you like about the movie?
Fiona

Hi Fiona,

Funnily enough, I have no strong opinion on Hephaistion. What I know about him is just what I've picked up through reading etc. I was surprised I scored as high as I did. I would like to see a novel in his POV though, as he had such a good "ringside seat" to Alexander, as it were.

Re reading, offhand I recall Peter Green, Frank Holt's In the Land of Bones, some trashy book that purported to reveal who killed ATG, Oliver Stone's muse Robin Fox, PC Doherty (fic and nonfic), Guy Maclean Rogers, Mary Renault (nonfic and some fic), a couple of trashy romances (just for fun), Stephen Pressfield, Melissa Scott, Judith Tarr, Valero(?) Manfredi.

As for the movie, I felt that Stone did a good job, given the enormous scope of history with which he had to work. A:R is the superior version and should've been the real "director's cut". I also very much enjoyed the details of costumes, scenery etc. I mentioned earlier that I missed the "crying scene" in the A:R. In Stone's version he telescoped all the battles with the Persians into a single decisive battle at Gaugamela. Given the film context - which is not the true historical context - I think it made sense for Alexander to weep a little.

Not to say I don't have a few quibbles with the movie. As much as I like Colin Farrell, I think he overacted a bit in his fit-throwing scenes with Olympias/Angelina. I really didn't need to see more slicing and dicing in A:R. I used to think the "dagger foreplay" of the wedding night was way over the top campy but with the context restored in A:R, I've toned down my opinion to "a bit much".

Hi Clio!
I hope this kind of chatty post is acceptable on this forum - where people are just trying to get to know each other. I expect it's all right, so long as the subject is Alexander, and so long as others feel free to join in if any comment interests them.

Clio wrote:
Funnily enough, I have no strong opinion on Hephaistion. What I know about him is just what I've picked up through reading etc. I was surprised I scored as high as I did. I would like to see a novel in his POV though, as he had such a good "ringside seat" to Alexander, as it were.

Now me, I rave about Hephaistion nearly as much as about Alexander. I think you might get to see that novel one day. There's one around that almost got published, and I know of a couple of others that are being written.

Clio wrote:
Re reading, offhand I recall Peter Green, Frank Holt's In the Land of Bones, some trashy book that purported to reveal who killed ATG, Oliver Stone's muse Robin Fox, PC Doherty (fic and nonfic), Guy Maclean Rogers, Mary Renault (nonfic and some fic), a couple of trashy romances (just for fun), Stephen Pressfield, Melissa Scott, Judith Tarr, Valero(?) Manfredi.

Quite a mixture! The only ones I've read from your list are RLF and Paul Doherty's 'Death of a God'. Are you interested in the 'what caused his death' theories? Have you seen that documentary, the one that seemed to be saying it was a disease that had something to do with birds, and then swerved round to a poison theory? (You can see I don't remember it too well!)

Clio wrote:
As for the movie, I felt that Stone did a good job, given the enormous scope of history with which he had to work. A:R is the superior version and should've been the real "director's cut". I also very much enjoyed the details of costumes, scenery etc. I mentioned earlier that I missed the "crying scene" in the A:R. In Stone's version he telescoped all the battles with the Persians into a single decisive battle at Gaugamela. Given the film context - which is not the true historical context - I think it made sense for Alexander to weep a little.

I do agree with you that AR should have been the real Director's Cut. I know lots of people who like the TV best, and lots who like AR best, but no-one who likes the actual Director's Cut best. I agree about the costumes, scenery, etc, too - absolutely awesome, visually, it was stunning, and I'm full of admiration for the art that conceives these images and then brings them to life. About the crying scene, I can't say I missed it, but it felt right to me when it was there. On my reading of Alexander's character, I'd have thought it not unexpected for him to get a bit emotional on viewing the carnage, given the exhaustion, the love he had for his men, and the physical low that comes after any intense action when the adrenaline's stopped flowing.

Clio wrote:
Not to say I don't have a few quibbles with the movie. As much as I like Colin Farrell, I think he overacted a bit in his fit-throwing scenes with Olympias/Angelina. I really didn't need to see more slicing and dicing in A:R. I used to think the "dagger foreplay" of the wedding night was way over the top campy but with the context restored in A:R, I've toned down my opinion to "a bit much".

I have a theory about that dagger bit. You know where Alexander says, "I'll die a fool...for this love", I think he was talking about Homer. It's because he just had to get the scrolls out, that Roxane got the dagger in the first place, so I think he's acknowledging that if his 'woman at earth's top' that he'd been looking for is to be the death of him, then it's his love of Homer that has placed him in this position, but he doesn't regret it.

Fiona

Taphoi wrote:I know of no evidence that the Seven had no commander. Diodorus 17.61.3 is evidence that it did. Diodorus 16.93.9 states that Philip advanced Pausanias in rank among the Bodyguards, which looks like another clear statement that a pecking order existed among the Seven.

And that, again, is firmly a matter of opinion.

It is passingly odd that Attalus, required for a command in Asian or not, felt himself so inviolate as to hand over one of the king’s personal bodyguards “to his stablemen to abuse sexually in drunken rape” (Diod. 16.93.7). One of those men, who under Alexander as surely as his father before him, would go on to become the top staff officers of the regime.

Although father and son are different, I find it difficult to see either Alexander or Philip allowing the drunken abuse and sexual assault of one of “the seven”.

In my opinion, the fact that somatophlylake or bodyguard is mistaken for royal guards or royal hypaspists, makes eminent common sense of the story including Pausanias’ “advancement” among the “royal guards” (royal hypaspists).

Paralus wrote:Although father and son are different, I find it difficult to see either Alexander or Philip allowing the drunken abuse and sexual assault of one of “the seven”.

In my opinion, the fact that somatophlylake or bodyguard is mistaken for royal guards or royal hypaspists, makes eminent common sense of the story including Pausanias’ “advancement” among the “royal guards” (royal hypaspists).

NGL Hammond in [i]Philip of Macedon[/i] wrote:Hoping to appease Pausanias, Philip gave him considerable gifts and honourable promotion among the group of seven Bodyguards. But Pausanias was not appeased. He planned to kill Philip.

Diodorus 16.93.3 introduces Pausanias as a "bodyguard of the king". It is impossible that he meant anything by this other than that Pausanias was an official and personal bodyguard of the king. He cannot have meant that Pausanias was an officer in the hypaspists, because the words do not literally convey that meaning. Diodorus' readership cannot have read that specialist meaning into the words, because Diodorus does not define any such specialist meaning: it is only defined by Arrian.

You make Pausanias' case against Philip very well. It was indeed outrageous that one of the seven and a Macedonian aristocrat (as Justin states) should have been raped by the servants of another aristocrat. It was even more outrageous that Philip failed to punish the perpetrator. That is why Pausanias assassinated Philip. If Philip's forgiveness of the rape of Pausanias for political motives had not been outrageous, Pausanias would not have had reason to be so angry with Philip.

Best wishes,

Andrew