pothos.org

Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
Yes, because as you have so singularly failed to explain, if the extra 4 or so chiliarchs ( beyond the corps of Hypaspists) were not appointed to posts within the phalanx it is very difficult to explain where they went without throwing up implausibilities,


I won’t bother giving this sort of fallacious reasoning a name but it singularly avoids the main point; if a piece of information can only be retained by implausible arguments, which include the introduction of new command structures piecemeal , then it should be rejected rather than clung to. All the more so when a superior source contradicts it – Arrian has Addaios a chiliarch before Curtius says the rank was first introduced – but there is a further test.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Xenophon uses the Greek words ‘chiliarchy’ and ‘chiliarch’ to describe a command of 1,000 men, and their commander. Addaios commands a ‘taxis/unit’, and as he is a ‘chiliarch’ it is likely his unit was 1,000 strong, made up of Greek mercenary hoplites ( see previously). Curtius is referring to the introduction of that organisation into Macedonian forces.

At the Hydaspes Arrian , V 12 ii lists those troops that crossed the river with Alexander
The Agema of the Companions
The Hipparchies of Hephaistion (NOT let it be noted the ‘Chiliarchy’ of Hephaistion)
Perdikkas
Demetrios and
Koinos (16 i)
The cavalry of the Bactrians
Sogdians
Scythians and
1,000 Dahai horse archers

Another false dichotomy here – it is not an ‘either or’ situation. Hephaistion’s command can be both a ‘Hipparchia’ [a generic cavalry command of indeterminate size] AND a ‘chiliarchy’ [ a unit 1,000 strong]. There are many modern analogies for this e.g. a unit can be both a ‘battalion’ and a ‘regiment’.

These we are told, V 14 I numbered 5,000, sadly, since the sizes of the Oriental contingents are not given, we cannot conclude much with certainty. But then we have the infantry, whom, we are twice told (14 i, 18 iii) numbered just under 6,000:
The Hypaspists
The phalanx units of Kleitos
And Koinos
The archers and
The Agrianoi

As with the cavalry there are too many unknowns and assumptions to even try to assess numbers. To begin with Agesilaos is trying to compare ‘nominal’ or ‘theoretical’ strengths with actual reported numbers, and if one thing is certain, it is that none of the units were at their full ‘paper strength’ ( which is only very exceptionally so all through history). Sickness, detached duties in the field, men detached as garrisons, desertion, laggards on the march, previous casualties, delayed foragers etc all combine to ensure no unit goes into action full strength. As rare examples of actual strengths, we may note that Caesar’s 9 Legions at Pharsalus numbered 23,000 – just 51% of their nominal strength of 45,000, and in this period, surviving ration documents for Achaemenid garrisons in Egypt show that ‘sataba/units of 100’ in fact numbered only 50-60, and similar documents from Judaea show cavalry ‘sataba’ with just 30-40 men.

In addition, other commentators have posited that the 6,000 refers to just those who had actually crossed, and that more were still waiting to cross – it will have been a very slow process.
We cannot draw any conclusions for numbers here at all.

I have already given one way the confusion could have arisen; if the promotion were to both chiliarch and pentekosiarch, it would be the method that was new not the rank: conversely scribes/copyists frequently revert to short-hand, ‘IIIIremus’ for ‘quadreme’ for instance, and these notations are very susceptible to corruption. The Greek sign for 500 is phi that for 1,000 a subscript-iota alpha quite simple to confuse, be the error a copyist’s or Curtius’ own.

So the ‘eight chiliarchs of Curtius ‘must be’ a mixture of chiliarchs and pentekosiarchs ? This is to put the cart before the horse – altering the evidence to fit a pre-conceived hypothesis. Another logical fallacy with no evidence to support it. As for copyists error, this cannot possibly apply, for Curtius spells out the Greek word in his Latin text at V.1.3 : .. “chiliarchas vocabant/they called them chiliarchiae”. Spelt out C-h-i-l-i-a-r-c-h-a-s, no shorthand !!

Hephaistion’s chiliarchy is, indeed, a digression, all I will say is that apart from that one passage his unit is consistently styled a hipparchy. That Alexander would invent a post to keep from hurting his feelings is gay-love fantasy and belongs in the Mills and Boon section; Alexander was so concerned with Hephaistion’s feelings that he sided with his opponents in two public spats with Eumenes and Krateros , going so far as to publicly declare that Hephaistion would be nothing without him. The Alexander concerned for the feelings of others does not emerge from my reading of the sources (this does not preclude shows of concern to further his own purpose, of course).

Yet again, you put words into my mouth that I did NOT write. As a general rule for readers, wherever someone paraphrases something rather than quoting what is actually written, that is a good indicator that the poster has added their own ‘spin’, and probably introduced a ‘straw man’.
I said nothing of ‘feelings’ – merely that having determined that a single commander of his ‘Hetairoi’ cavalry was not advisable, after Philotas, Alexander found an ingenious way NOT to grant that command to Hephaistion ( whom Alexander apparently never trusted with an important military command), without causing him ‘loss of face’ – I think we would all agree that among the Macedonian Barons, status was something they were all acutely conscious of. Hephaistion’s original command had been of a 1,000 ‘Hetairoi’, along with Cleitus. Subsequently, ‘hipparchia’ was used to refer to a unit of 512 ‘Hetairoi’, each made up of 2 ‘Iles/squadrons’ [Arrian VI.21.3]. Neither did Alexander ‘invent a post’. Hephaistion WAS ALREADY de facto ‘chiliarch’/commander of 1,000...most conveniently from Alexander’s point of view.

And I agree that Hephaistion's unit was most commonly referred to as a 'hipparchia'. But it was ALSO a 'chiliarchy - see above.

LOL! In the face of such sermons, I claim my right to sarcasm, the alternative would be in contravention of the injunction against foul language!

Working backwards,

And I agree that Hephaistion's unit was most commonly referred to as a 'hipparchia'. But it was ALSO a 'chiliarchy - see above.

Since you insist on bleating about being misrepresented you might extend that courtesy to the rest of us; I said,

all I will say is that apart from that one passage his unit is consistently styled a hipparchy.

‘most commonly’ is not synonomous with the reference to his chiliarchy being unique to the one passage, nor is your point sustainable. Arrian says V 12 ii

… τῶν τε ἑταίρων τὸ ἄγημα καὶ τὴν Ἡφαιστίωνος ἱππαρχίαν καὶ τὴν Περδίκκου τε καὶ Δημητρίου…
The agema of the Companions and the hipparchy of Hephaistion and that of Perdikkas and that of Demetrios

Clearly all of these hipparchiai were of the same sort, which is the only sort to which Arrian ever refers, the generic use is fallacious as is the specific use of ‘taxis’ in parts of this one work despite your faith in it.

Yet again, you put words into my mouth that I did NOT write. As a general rule for readers, wherever someone paraphrases something rather than quoting what is actually written, that is a good indicator that the poster has added their own ‘spin’, and probably introduced a ‘straw man’.

Actually it is generally because cutting and pasting comments leads to long and dis-jointed posts, but I guess you must have your ‘strawman argument’. Quibbling over ‘feelings’ and ‘loss of face’ is just sophistry, the substantive point is that Alexander would do whatever he wanted regardless of any considerations other than those of Realpolitik. Nor was the Companion cavalry 2,000 strong when it was divided between Kleitos and Hephaistion; there was the eile basilikoi, already commanded by Kleitos and seven regional ilia for a total of 1,800 (Diodoros XVII 17 iv). Were the ilia of a consistent size then each would command 900, but the Royal Ile seems to have been stronger than the ‘line’, 300 being the usual guess, which would give the half with the ‘ile basilike’ 945 strong and the other 860. Kleitos is not recorded as having lost his command of the Royal ile to Hephaistion so Hephaistion’s command would be 140 shy of the 1,000 that you continually assert, without evidence.

So the ‘eight chiliarchs of Curtius ‘must be’ a mixture of chiliarchs and pentekosiarchs ? This is to put the cart before the horse – altering the evidence to fit a pre-conceived hypothesis. Another logical fallacy with no evidence to support it. As for copyists error, this cannot possibly apply, for Curtius spells out the Greek word in his Latin text at V.1.3 : .. “chiliarchas vocabant/they called them chiliarchiae”. Spelt out C-h-i-l-i-a-r-c-h-a-s, no shorthand !!

Ye Gods! Another ‘strawman’, this is getting like a casting call for ‘The Wizard of Oz’!! All the more so since those inverted commas around the ‘must be’ imply that it is a quote from me rather than an imputation from you. Once again fallacious; you announced

Are you seriously suggesting that Curtius’ source could mistake “Commander of 1,000” for “Commander of 500” or perhaps some other sub-unit ?? (chiliarchy for pentekosiarchy – which is as unmistakeable in Greek as it is in English)

I merely suggested two ways confusion may have arisen; I was positing an error in the reading of Curtius’ source text, so, as so often, the fulmination is totally beside the point. Not understanding an argument does not invalidate it, try reading more carefully.

As with the cavalry there are too many unknowns and assumptions to even try to assess numbers. To begin with Agesilaos is trying to compare ‘nominal’ or ‘theoretical’ strengths with actual reported numbers, and if one thing is certain, it is that none of the units were at their full ‘paper strength’ ( which is only very exceptionally so all through history). Sickness, detached duties in the field, men detached as garrisons, desertion, laggards on the march, previous casualties, delayed foragers etc all combine to ensure no unit goes into action full strength. As rare examples of actual strengths, we may note that Caesar’s 9 Legions at Pharsalus numbered 23,000 – just 51% of their nominal strength of 45,000, and in this period, surviving ration documents for Achaemenid garrisons in Egypt show that ‘sataba/units of 100’ in fact numbered only 50-60, and similar documents from Judaea show cavalry ‘sataba’ with just 30-40 men.

In addition, other commentators have posited that the 6,000 refers to just those who had actually crossed, and that more were still waiting to cross – it will have been a very slow process.
We cannot draw any conclusions for numbers here at all

Did I hear ‘argument of convenience’? Cry for evidential argument and then reject the evidence when it contradicts your own niche view, one way of fulfilling that Bacon quote you used to bandy around I suppose.

Your point is ‘fallacious’ Caesar was the commander of his own army writing a ‘diary’, for want of a better word (‘commentaria’ differ from ‘historia’) and it is just as likely he has reduced the number of his own troops; though I DO agree that units would rarely be at full paper strength in reality. Arrian is working from Ptolemy (he introduces Aristoboulos as a variant later). Unless you are with positing Ptolemy took over an immensely detailed ‘Ephemerides’ when he stole Alexander’s corpse, the only way he had of estimating the strength of the forces was by assuming they were at paper strength.

Yes, the figure of ‘a little under 6,000’ is for those who crossed the river, Arrian says so; he also says Alexander waited for his forces to concentrate so, sunburned whatever there.

Another false dichotomy here – it is not an ‘either or’ situation. Hephaistion’s command can be both a ‘Hipparchia’ [a generic cavalry command of indeterminate size] AND a ‘chiliarchy’ [ a unit 1,000 strong]. There are many modern analogies for this e.g. a unit can be both a ‘battalion’ and a ‘regiment’

No a false synthesis as the above quote from Arrian demonstrates.

ALL of Xenophon’s usages are in a Greek context, of course. ‘Chiliarchy’ is a Greek word for a unit 1,000 strong ( the Persian equivalent is ‘hazarabam’ ). In the Cyropaedia, the ‘Persians’ are a thinly disguised Spartan army, and Xenophon uses the Greek word for a unit of 1,000 – ‘chiliarchy’ inter alia when describing them. The reference in Oeconomica is military:
IV.7 “The officers, whether commanders of garrisons or of regiments/chiliarchies or viceroys/satraps, who turn out with a full complement of men and parade them equipped with horses and arms/oplois in good condition, he promotes in the scale of honour and enriches with large grants of money.”
From a slightly earlier reference to ‘mercenaries’ and the fact that these troops ( unlike native Persians) are heavy-armed i.e. hoplites, it is clear that these chiliarchies are most likely Greek Hoplites.

Sophistry of a staggering degree! If an author is Greek his use of any Greek term IS a Greek context!
Unfortunately Xenophon wrote a whole treatise on the Spartan army and there is no mention of units of 1,000 or chiliarchs, looks like another fallacious argument.

So hoplites paraded equipped with HORSES! LOL! These troops are clearly Persian cavalry under Persian officers; nothing says they are ‘heavy armed’ ‘hoplai’ are just arms, they are not specifically ‘hoplite arms’.

I’ll leave Paralus to shred the rest. OOPs nearly forgot

I disagree with Agesilaos’ next post – there is a simple explanation which accounts for both Ptolemy being given “one third” of the Hypaspists and Alexander having “half the Hypaspists” without postulating six chiliarchies !!

I wrote

Loath though I am to mention it, the Tactica do speak of twelve as a strength for the file which would yield 144 as the strength of the smallest tactical unit (based on a square) six of these would give ‘chiliarchiai’ of 864 plus the supernumerary officers. Whether you think this is close enough to 1,000 is a personal decision.

No mention of ‘six chiliarchiai’, more careless reading, and from the repeated ‘lochoi’ I guess that post has not even been opened.

Xenophon wrote:acceptable, or even possible, especially as Macedonian manpower was strained to the utmost as it was by Alexander’s ambitions and demands. The 6,000 re-inforcements [Arrian III.16; Diodorus XVII.65; Curtius V.1 ] that Amyntas brought must have been drawn equally from all the territories.

Seems a source not numbered amongst "our best" can be quoted at convenience here. Even more galling, it confirms Curtius' figures ("who may have drawn on another source for this particular passage"). Just why might Curtius' source be different to that of Diodorus here?

Historians don't have the luxury of picking and choosing their sources...

Xenophon wrote:

Agesilaos wrote: "τοὺς ὑπασπιστὰς τοὺς βασιλικούς, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Σέλευκος"

The King's Own Hypaspists, of whom Seleukos was the leader

He really means the third of the King's Own Hypaspists of whom Seleukos was the officer, strange that he does not merit a mention when Niarchos and Antichos take three chiliarchis into action, despite being important enough to share Alexander's boat.

There are many explanations for why Seleucus was not present with the other two.[ e.g. at the Hydaspes crossing he accompanied Alexander as a close 'somatophylax', along with Perdiccas and Lysimachus, so these men were not with their units]

You really need to pay closer attention to the source material. You will note that Seleukos accompanied Alexander as τῶν ἑταίρων, ὁ βασιλεύσας ὕστερον / "Seleukos the hetairon, later the king". He is nowhere described as a Somatophylax: that is the status of the other two.It is also very clear that he led his troops in the ensuing battle and that they must have followed him across - particularly those not part of the "half of the hypaspists" that went with him in the same boat that you conveniently ignore. Which half is Arrian referring to? The "other hypaspists" that he does not command? Hardly "not with their units" - at least in Seleukos' case. Just what was Lysimachos' unit? Presumably Alexander wasn't with his unit either?

Xenophon wrote:That the Agema was too is clearly inferred from Alexander taking “half the hypaspists” i.e the Agema and one other chiliarchy, leaving the other half as the remaining two chiliarchies. [e.g Arrian V.13.1 and VI.21.3 ]. These fractions simply don’t work unless the Agema numbered 1,000 – a chiliarchy – also. The Agema can’t have been a mere ‘lochos/pentekosiarchy’ strong.

We are nowhere told how large the agema was. My point is that the agema was part of, yet distinct from, the hypaspists. Thus Alexander takes all the hypaspsists (2.4.3 for example) which includes the agema or he simply takes the agema (5.2.5). When named in the battle line it is posted alongside the king (Issos, Guagamela) and next to it are “the rest” or “the other” hypaspists. It is then, the lead unit. It does not need to be a chiliarchy (which is not to say it wasn’t) just as other “lead” units did not need to be 1,000 strong. It might just as well have been the lead petakosiarchy of its chiliarcy.

Now, the “fractions”, as you note, become a little messed. That, though, does not really bother me as Arrian, like other ancient authors, can be lax with such. For example Seleukos, crossing the Hydaspes , does so with his unit. Indeed he, Alexander, Perdikkas and Lysimachos pile into a boat with “half” of the hypaspists. On any count (three or four thousand) that’s a bit difficult to swallow. Elsewhere we have the oddity of Alexander taking “700 of the somotphylakes (agema) and hypaspists”. In any case, were the agema a part of yet distinct from its chiliarchy, it does not preclude Alexander keeping his agema (and its partner in its chiliarchy) and giving a “third part” of the remaining three to Ptolemy. Ditto for half.

Xenophon wrote:The rest of this post simply does not logically follow. The ‘other’ Hypaspists are those that Seleucus does not command ( there is absolutely no evidence that he commands all ).

Actually, I thought it eminently logical. To save others looking I’ll paste the gist of it below:

I can only agree with Agesilaos here. Arrian only says that Alexander placed hard by the cavalry the 'Royal hypaspists' under Seleukos. Not a chiliarchy under Seleukos and not 'a third' under Seleukos. He then goes on to say that beside these were stationed "the agema basilikoi and then the other hypaspists" (τὸ ἄγημα τὸ βασιλικόν; τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπασπιστάς). There is no division of the 'Royal hypaspists' here. The only way the passage can be read is that there is an agema, royal hypaspists and 'other' hypaspists.

Arrian is quite capable of noting split commands and does so often (the above “third part” or “two chiliarchies” etc). If the passage stands as written Arrian goes into detail for the infantry here and he notes that Alexander placed “the royal hypaspists, under the command of Seleukos, hard beside the cavalry” going on to note the “royal agema” and “the other hypaspists” beside the ‘royal hypaspists’. He nowhere says that “a chiliarchy” or a “third” of the royal hypaspists are under the command of Seleukos and so Arrian’s statement that the royal hypaspists were under the command of Seleukos stands.

A good example of flawed methods is represented by Agesilaos' post of 29 Dec. Here he calculates that the number of oxen (230,0000 ) sent to Macedon cannot be so on the basis that 1 ox needs 40 acres to support it. However, as he also points out this number can vary enormously - in fact from 2 acres per cow, to over 100 acres per cow on, for example, some of the larger ranches here in Australia. With such variants, one cannot begin to estimate the number of oxen supportable in ancient times by the Swat valley ( e..rr..rr define the same before approximating its area ). It is not necessary to resort to such flawed methods to realise that a number such as 230,000 is obviously hopelessly exaggerated ( I leave it to Agesilaos to work out the daily water requirements of such a herd, even split up into smaller numbers, to allow water supplies to recover before the next 'batch' is sent !!).

To then assume that the same proportion of exaggeration is applied to troop numbers as to oxen is the height of illogical methodology - there is absolutely no link between the two figures! This is the logical error of confusing association with causation, and also a false analogy. In fact there is no possible link between the exaggerated numbers of oxen and the possible numbers of troops !!

I have to confess, I don’t recall reading this particular diatribe first time round, but will assume that is my memory rather than the edit noted at the end of the post.

Once again it seems that have failed to read what is written rather than what you want to read; there is an ‘if’ where I relate the scale of exaggeration, a small but important word. Nor are these cattle sent to Macedon en masse, Alexander is said to have selected the best for homeward transport, not to have sent the whole 230,000; if you wish to use my argument as an example of flawed reasoning, at least get that argument right, or you will end up complaining about your own straw-man arguments, and ‘that way madness lies’.

Again the lowest acreage I gave was 5, but you reduce this to 2; and I stated this was for a modern cow not an ox. Having given the figures it seems perfectly reasonable to state the parameters I am using to estimate the maximum possible oxen in the Swat Valley, Just as I do not like clogging the flow of a post with endless cut and pastes of previous posts it would take too much to define the Swat Valley and without a map pretty unintelligible, in words; I assume people are capable of looking things up for themselves. The relative value of the possibilities of estimating, the ancient flow rate and capacity of ancient river systems over the acreage of pasture per head of cattle required I will leave to the gentle reader.

What has become evident is that you have nothing to support your own position but the insubstantial flounderings and knee-jerk abuse we once associated with Taphoi; I can only assume it is a legacy of the Season.

Much typing expended upon arguments “fallacious”, “straw” or of a “false dichotomy”. If not those there is the reliable “red herring”. This seems to have produced some… angst. It might pay to actually read what is written for we are not all so sinless – including Xenophon who seems so fond of such accusations.

On the red herring front there is the matter of Hephaestion’s supposed command. This was introduced as evidence of a chiliarch command structure extending to the cavalry by Xenophon here.. It was also defended and enlarged upon as can be seen in this post and also this one.. This was argued against, by myself, several times the result being that it was described variously as a “straw man”, “false dichotomy” and “illogical”. Eventually it was dismissed in the following terms:

Xenophon wrote:However, all this is a digression – another ‘sunburned clupeidae’, which is here used to distract from the total lack of evidence for Paralus’ rather loose, and seemingly confused position

Well, my “distraction” is, in fact, a reply to the position claimed. If “clupeidae” it is, it is not of my manufacture.

There is, also, the view of Xenophon with respect to “Curtius’ evidence”. I have summed this up in a previous post. Accepting this evidence Xenophon has alternately proposed that

• The entire forces were organised into chiliarchies but, as eight only are named, it was done ‘piecemeal’ (to use Agesilaos’ descriptive term): eight here, the many others needed at some other time(s).
  
  Whilst only eight are named by Curtius, other chiliarchs were appointed to all the forces from “existing commanders” who were accommodated into “the new structure” and did not need to be named.
  
  Only one chiliarch needed to be found for each phalanx battalion because perhaps the taxiarch was also the other chiliarch.

Then there is Seleukos. Originally I was told the following in what can be considered ‘no uncertain terms’:

Xenophon wrote:Nor can you dismiss Seleucus so easily. He commands a unit of Hypaspists, which can be nothing other than a chiliarchy ( there are ‘other’ units of Hypaspists present whom he does not command, so please don’t try and claim he is some sort of ‘archihypapist’, which is where I suspect you are going.)

Later we find a slight modification of this strident position:

Xenophon wrote:It is correct that these two are the only named Hypaspist chiliarchs, but although not called so, Seleucus is likely a chiliarch of Hypaspists also.

What could be “nothing other than a chiliarchy” (with a stern admonishment not to present an argument Xenophon did not wish to hear) has now become only “likely”. Wherefore the certainty?

Is it any wonder there is angst!?

Whilst on Seleukos, the Hydaspes is, apart from “Curtius’ evidence”, the other major piece here. There are two engagements: the first immediately following the crossing and the second, the major set piece which followed later. Far too much conflation is going on between the two. The dispositions for the first (against Porus’ son) are not the dispositions for the latter. The troops involved in the first are not necessarily those engaged in the latter.

Arrian states that, in the first encounter, that Alexander posted the cavalry agema and the “strongest” of the other hipparchies on the right wing. He then posted the Dahae in front. The hypaspists are as has been endlessly discussed and then the archers and javelin men on each wing. Seleukos, apart from Tauron, the commander of the archers (no chiliarchs), is the only commander mentioned here. The battle then ensues and Arrian gives both Ptolemy’s and Aritoboulos’ versions. This over, Alexander marches to meet Porus who marches to meet him and “the most powerful body of Macedonians” (5.15.4). Alexander halts his cavalry and awaits the coming of his “phalanx” (15.16.1). He then sets about engaging in the battle proper.

Some things are apparent. Firstly one either accepts that the two phalanx units were in the first skirmish or they were not. Secondly only two commanders are named in the first encounter. On the first, Arrian only notes hypaspists as being involved (aside from the Agrianians and javelin men). No phalanx units are named. That Arrian says that Alexander would take on “Poros’ men” with his cavalry and archers whilst his infantry came up suggests they had not all crossed as yet. This is backed up by Alexander awaiting his infantry prior to the main engagement. The logical reading is that in the first skirmish the phalanx units were still crossing and that the ‘lights’ and hypaspists were the infantry (“half” the hypaspists seemingly crossed with Alexander).

All that said, in this first skirmish, we have two commanders named in this battle line: Tauron (the two thousand archers) and Seleukos who commands the ‘royal hypaspists’. There are no others whatsoever. And that makes sense if we only have four thousand hypaspists (or three). To conflate the later notice of Antigenes (and Tauron who, as commander of the archers, also helps lead the ‘phalanx’) in the later battle is to confuse matters. Only Seleukos commands anything here outside of the archers. He commands the ‘royal hypaspists’.

I will only address the skirmish and battle on the Hydaspes; I presume that the point is that the ‘not short of 6,000 foot’ refers to the troops involved in the initial skirmish with Poros’ son and so just the lights and however many Hypaspists.

First, it is nowhere stated how many archers there were here, your parenthetical 2,000 coming from the notice of two chiliarchies in the battle with the Aspasians (IV 24 x) . At IV 25 vi, the Agrianoi and the archers are possibly mentioned as 1,000 strong together, the text is uncertain here, though, which is a shame for me!

Secondly, Arrian does not say Alexander crossed with ‘half the hypaspists’, but that half the Hypaspists under Seleukos crossed in the same triakonter V 13 I and that the rest crossed in other vessels of the same size

αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιβὰς τριακοντόρου ἐπέρα καὶ ἅμα αὐτῷ Πτολεμαῖός τε καὶ Περδίκκας καὶ Λυσίμαχος οἱ σωματοφύλακες καὶ Σέλευκος τῶν ἑταίρων, ὁ βασιλεύσας ὕστερον, καὶ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν οἱ ἡμίσεες: τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ὑπασπιστὰς ἄλλαι τριακόντοροι ἔφερον.

These are, admittedly quibbles but it is the second reference to the numbers that demonstrates the whole force is meant V 18 iii

τῶν δὲ ἀμφ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον πεζοὶ μὲν ἀπὸ ἑξακισχιλίων τῶν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ προσβολῇ γενομένων ἐς ὀγδοήκοντα μάλιστα ἀπέθανον: ἱππεῖς δὲ τῶν μὲν ἱπποτοξοτῶν, οἳ δὴ καὶ πρῶτοι τοῦ ἔργου ἥψαντο, δέκα: τῆς δὲ ἑταιρικῆς ἵππου ἀμφὶ τοὺς εἴκοσι: τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ἱππέων ὡς διακόσιοι.

Of the around 6,000 foot with Alexander engaged in the initial attack about eighty died: of the horse-archers who were the first into action, ten; around twenty of the Companion cavalry; and two hundred of the other cavalry.

Now this could be read as the casualties for the initial skirmish, but the Indians lost 400 (Alexander here loses 310) and were already running when contacted and more tellingly there was no infantry involved.’ Protos’ here, then refers not to the initial skirmish rather than the actual battle but to the first phase of the battle before Krateros also crossed.

agesilaos wrote:Secondly, Arrian does not say Alexander crossed with ‘half the hypaspists’, but that half the Hypaspists under Seleukos crossed in the same triakonter V 13 I and that the rest crossed in other vessels of the same size

αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιβὰς τριακοντόρου ἐπέρα καὶ ἅμα αὐτῷ Πτολεμαῖός τε καὶ Περδίκκας καὶ Λυσίμαχος οἱ σωματοφύλακες καὶ Σέλευκος τῶν ἑταίρων, ὁ βασιλεύσας ὕστερον, καὶ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν οἱ ἡμίσεες: τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ὑπασπιστὰς ἄλλαι τριακόντοροι ἔφερον.

I don't necessarily agree. "καὶ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν οἱ ἡμίσεες" can be read both ways. You see οἱ as the possessive (of Seleukos) "his"? Thus "his half of the hypaspists" or similar? Yet this can also be rendered as "the one" thus giving "the one half of the hypaspists". The latter makes more sense to me given the "other hypaspists" (ἄλλους ὑπασπιστὰς) are carried on another triaconter. If Arrian meant 'half of his hypaspists' he might well of said that the other half and the other hypspists were in another triaconter. I do, though, agree that half of a smaller unit might fit in such a vessel but the ancients didn't seem to worry about such.

agesilaos wrote:Now this could be read as the casualties for the initial skirmish, but the Indians lost 400 (Alexander here loses 310) and were already running when contacted and more tellingly there was no infantry involved.’ Protos’ here, then refers not to the initial skirmish rather than the actual battle but to the first phase of the battle before Krateros also crossed.

Again, there are (infamously) two ways of reading that. The fact that Arrian states that there were no foot were casualties surely, though, speaks to the skirmish for here there is no attested infantry battle; the battle (on both accounts) being a cavalry and chariot battle. Alexander is also attested as sending the mounted archers in first against this advance force (15.14.3) This took place, incidentally, whilst the forces were still crossing (15.14.5-6) and whilst Alexander had only part of his forces across. These forces must be those he was crossing with.

The point about the infantry, is that the number is associated with the casualties (80) which ONLY occurred in the main battle, we both agree the initial skirmish was a cavalry affair, so the casualty figures and the strength of 'about 6,000' must apply to the battle and not the skirmish; the earlier citation, then at 12 ii applies to the listed contingents in toto. This in turn means that Koinos' unit (taxis) whilst listed with the infantry must be an error; be it noted that he appears at the head of his hipparchy later but that is not included with the cavalry list! That Koinos had been a phalanx commander will have aided Arrian in his error, allied with Ptolemy's imprecise terminology - all of Alexander's cavalry coalesce into one ile at 17 iv

καὶ ἐν τούτῳ πᾶσα ἡ ἵππος Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἐς μίαν ἴλην ἤδη ξυνηγμένη

Earlier, 17 i they were a 'taxis' and all the Macedonian 'phalanx' is described as being 'taxeis', perfectly normal as 'taxis' is just a 'formation' or 'unit' without further distinction.

...καὶ Σέλευκος τῶν ἑταίρων, ὁ βασιλεύσας ὕστερον, καὶ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν οἱ ἡμίσεες: τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους ὑπασπιστὰς ἄλλαι τριακόντοροι ἔφερον.

I am not suggesting that hoi here is possessive, that would be 'heautos', 'heautoi' here as it agrees in number with 'hemisees' which is masculine plural nominative (it is the subject of the 'understood' verb, einai, with 'ama autoi' ie 'with him (Alexander) were') so it reads '...and Seleukos of the Companions, the future king, and of the hypaspists the halves; the other hypaspists crossed on other triakonters', I think the plural 'halves' must be some usage thing that I have forgotten, as it clearly only means one half and one half of all the hypaspists, as it reads, which is, as you note, a problem; the other 'half' are in more than one ship and to further muddy the waters, when he lands Alexander disembarks cavalry from his ship! Even if half of Seleukos' command means half the Royal Hypaspists as I see them, a pentekosiarchy, 250 is about five times the capacity of a triakonter! Perhaps 'hemisees' is corrupt, but it is probably best to take it as an impressionist 'word-picture' rather than an accurate report of the numbers on Alexander's triakonter. Anyway, my point was only that all the hypaspists crossed rather than just the half attested with Seleukos, though I put it rather clumsily.

agesilaos wrote:The point about the infantry, is that the number is associated with the casualties (80) which ONLY occurred in the main battle, we both agree the initial skirmish was a cavalry affair, so the casualty figures and the strength of 'about 6,000' must apply to the battle and not the skirmish;

Yes, quite so; my misreading.

agesilaos wrote:This in turn means that Koinos' unit (taxis) whilst listed with the infantry must be an error; be it noted that he appears at the head of his hipparchy later but that is not included with the cavalry list! That Koinos had been a phalanx commander will have aided Arrian in his error, allied with Ptolemy's imprecise terminology - all of Alexander's cavalry coalesce into one ile at 17 iv

καὶ ἐν τούτῳ πᾶσα ἡ ἵππος Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἐς μίαν ἴλην ἤδη ξυνηγμένη

Earlier, 17 i they were a 'taxis' and all the Macedonian 'phalanx' is described as being 'taxeis', perfectly normal as 'taxis' is just a 'formation' or 'unit' without further distinction.

Can't see that though. At 17.1 the Macedonian phalanx is not mentioned. What is mentioned is Koinos and his cavalry (including Demetrios' hipparchy). I agree that Koinos is clearly leading cavalry in this battle. The 'taxis' mentioned are the units of the Indian cavalry: ταῦτα ξυνιδόντες οἱ Ἰνδοὶ ἀμφίστομον ἠναγκάσθησαν ποιῆσαι τὴν τάξιν τῆς ἵππου.

On the Seleukos thing, I agree that the troops that accompany Alexander are rather too many for the boat. This doesn't ever seemed to have bothered Arrian as I mentioned before. The passage - like much of this Hydaspes narrative, is 'annoying'. I don't necessarily see that the cavalry went on the same boat - only that these were in close proximity and that Alexander had them unloaded first (not by necessity from his boat but those about him). He was clearly planning for the cavalry to screen the infantry arrivals.

agesilaos wrote: Anyway, my point was only that all the hypaspists crossed rather than just the half attested with Seleukos, though I put it rather clumsily.

Yes. My point was that the only commander named for the initial skirmish - aside from Tauron ordered to bring the archers up in support of the cavalry - is Seleukos. He commands the royal hypaspists and, depending upon what makes up this infantry, it might realy only be hypaspists aside from the lights.

Just what has become of the other phalanx unit is a mystery and I puzzle that Alexander would take on Porus with a single phalanx unit only. Corruption has crept in somehow methinks. The notion that Koinos' battalion of the phalanx was commanded by another is not without merit. Krateros leads a hipparchy at this time as well but his phalanx unit has not disappeared.

One all on mis-readings, oops, yes those taxeis are Indian! That still supports my point about the non-technical nature of the word and Ptolemy's usage , though.

If the numbers given are correct then there is no room for two phalanx units and the hypaspist corps and archers and Agrianians, the context is clearly the battle because infantry casualties are reported and the numbers repeated. Yes, it is possible to remain the named commander of a unit yet actually command another, as you say, in Hephaistion's case you could even do it when you were dead! The numbers won't work without Koinos only having his hipparchy, though.

At 12 ii Koinos is not given the hipparchy he clearly commands later

[2] αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιλεξάμενος τῶν τε ἑταίρων τὸ ἄγημα καὶ τὴν Ἡφαιστίωνος ἱππαρχίαν καὶ τὴν Περδίκκου τε καὶ Δημητρίου καὶ τοὺς ἐκ Βάκτρων καὶ Σογδιανῶν καὶ τοὺς Σκύθας ἱππέας καὶ Δάας τοὺς ἱπποτοξότας καὶ τῆς φάλαγγος τούς τε ὑπασπιστὰς καὶ τὴν Κλείτου τε καὶ Κοίνου τάξιν καὶ τοὺς τοξότας τε καὶ τοὺς Ἀγριᾶνας

Sorry the foot units are taxeis at 17iii

... τά τε γὰρ θηρία ἐπεκθέοντα ἐς τὰς τάξεις τῶν πεζῶν, ὅπῃ ἐπιστρέψειεν, ἐκεράϊζε καίπερ πυκνὴν οὖσαν τὴν τῶν Μακεδόνων φάλαγγα

For where ever the beasts were able they turned about ravaging the taxeis of the foot, despite the close order of the Macedonian phalanx,

Kleitos' unit does not appear separately noticed but the same is true of Antigenes' who appears unannounced in command of the battle line, he must outrank Kleitos whose command is subordinate to him, surely; Seleukos has command of the Royal Hypaspists and Tauron the lights; it is possible that Antigenes is some de facto archihypaspist Which makes this all relevant to the thread Ptolemy certainly had no love for Antigenes the prop of his enemy, Eumenes.

agesilaos wrote:If the numbers given are correct then there is no room for two phalanx units and the hypaspist corps and archers and Agrianians, the context is clearly the battle because infantry casualties are reported and the numbers repeated. Yes, it is possible to remain the named commander of a unit yet actually command another, as you say, in Hephaistion's case you could even do it when you were dead! The numbers won't work without Koinos only having his hipparchy, though.

No, if the numbers are correct they will not work. They only work two ways: if the hypaspists numbered 4,000 and the Argrianians and archers numbered 2,000 in toto; if the hypaspists numbered 3,000 and phalanx taxeis 1,500 (by two) and Ptolemy/Arrian commit the 'original sin' of Greek historians in not counting the lights as the infantry. Outside of that I see no way for there to be "almost 6,000" infantry any other way. There are problems, as I've stated, with the entire narrative highlighted by Koinos commanding his hypparchy which is nowhere listed as having been taken. That is a glaring error of commission (your posited confusion) or omission (by Arrian's source or himself). The number of the infantry though - repeated as you say - is crucial. It seals the fact that, as Bosworth long ago pointed out, no other units managed to join in the battle until the pursuit occasioned by the rout. The numbers for Poros' army can only be judged on the assault force taken by Alexander.

agesilaos wrote:Kleitos' unit does not appear separately noticed but the same is true of Antigenes' who appears unannounced in command of the battle line, he must outrank Kleitos whose command is subordinate to him, surely; Seleukos has command of the Royal Hypaspists and Tauron the lights; it is possible that Antigenes is some de facto archihypaspist Which makes this all relevant to the thread Ptolemy certainly had no love for Antigenes the prop of his enemy, Eumenes.

Again, the received description is not horribly helpful. Arrian has Seleukos, Tauron and Antigenes "lead" the phalanx (ἄγειν), which phalanx consisted of the hypaspists, the archers and the Agrianians. We can only assume that Seleukos was on the right as in the initial skirmish. The lights, under Tauron, are across the front of the hypaspists as the description that follows makes plain (17.3: "the Macedonian phalanx (φάλαγξ αὐτὴ τῶν Μακεδόνων) advanced to meet the elephants hurling javelins (ἀκοντίζοντες) at the men mounted upon them and shooting at the beasts from all sides (θηρία περισταδὸν πάντοθεν βάλλοντες); 17.6: The Macedonians [...] were able to give ground when charged, then follow behind and hurl javelins (ἐσακοντίζοντες) when the beasts turned their backs...). This is clearly not the work of phalanx taxeis and nor would one expect it from the hypaspists who are the heavy infantry line here. Rather than "some sort of archihypaspist here", Antigenes might be commanding the left end of the hypaspists and Tauron the lights in the front of the phalanx.

There seems no room for Curtius' helpful "long spears" here as it is difficult to find room for sarisa-armed units in the numbers - particularly if the hypaspists number 4,000. Even were there, such would seem not to take part until after the order to "lock shields" and close up on the defeated Indians.

The numbers work with; 3,000 hypaspists, 1,500 phalangites (Kleitos) and 1.000 Archers and Agrianians. I think the lights are counted, they figure quite prominently in the narrative, as you point out, and have a named commander, but agree that other authors frequently omit them or include them in a force total then leave them out of the detailed dispositions.

Alexander specifically waits for his foot to come up and then rests them before initiating the battle, the line phalanx unit must be in the battle line (which is probably the better rendering of ‘phalanx’ throughout). Given that, we can assume Tauron to be in command of the archers and probably all the lights, Antigenes has to be a Hypaspist officer as the only other infantry already have their named commander(s), given the Macedonian sensitivity to status his rank is probably higher than that of a phalanx taxiarch and the Hypaspist chiliarchs, although he may derive his status, viv-a-vis the other chiliarchs from the daily roster of precedence. I concur that Seleukos and his command were probably on the right, the position of honour as befits the Royal Hypaspists (if this means all the Hypaspists then Antigenes has no-one to command). Seleukos is given prominence due to his later kingship and also his friendship with Ptolemy, and Antigenes’ position left vague to say the least, I would put him in command of the whole close fighting line (possibly above Seleukos too) but I immediately concede that this is not stated (hence the ‘twisted evil’).

I notice that you do not think the Hypaspists sarrissa armed, a whole new can of worms! But consider the Battle of Tunis 255BC, Regulus sought to counter the Carthaginian elephants by forming his legions in tight formation, like the pyknosis here, he found that pila were insufficient deterrence and the close order only serving to give the pachyderms more to crush; whilst doruta – spears are different from pila, they too lack the advantage of sarrissai, which is to keep the enemy at a distance, I don’t think spear armed Hypaspists would have fared any differently to Regulus’ men .

I agree too that the numbers of Poros’ forces can best be calculated by those deployed against them, once again they are exaggerated.

agesilaos wrote:I notice that you do not think the Hypaspists sarrissa armed, a whole new can of worms!

No, not at all. Rather a door left open or a Tassie Devil trolled lazily through the trout waters of Skillous.

I've never had a problem with the hypaspists being sarisa-armed. Were any regularly spear armed I'd argue they were the dedicated infantry guard (agema / your royal hypaspists) and armed akin to the Aghios Athanasios depictions: bowled, rimless shields and spears.The 'regular' hypaspists would be armed in either fashion: rimless shield and sarisa or spear depending upon the job. Some argue such cross arming is too much to expect though a similar argument is run for the regular phalanx who can use spear and phalangite shield or sarisa and phalangite shield which causes few such problems.

That said, the other tradition (Curtius and Diodorus) both report the wielding of the sarisa against the elephants and their mahouts. Even were we to concede two phalanx units in battle alongside the hypaspists, the hypaspists are sarisa-armed as they form half the battle line (in that scenario) or all of it (in the other extreme). Arrian seems to concentrate on the actions of the lights along the battle line's front.

I would also agree that here 'phalanx' means the entire battle line - including the lights. As I've pointed out, Arrian's description is nearly entirely that of the action of the light infantry which is consistently referred as the action of the "phalanx".

agesilaos wrote:The numbers work with; 3,000 hypaspists, 1,500 phalangites (Kleitos) and 1.000 Archers and Agrianians. I think the lights are counted, they figure quite prominently in the narrative, as you point out, and have a named commander, but agree that other authors frequently omit them or include them in a force total then leave them out of the detailed dispositions.

The numbers will remain vexed and just how the "just short" of (ἀποδέοντας ) 6,000 infantry are made up is difficult. I do lean to 4,000 hypaspists and that makes things difficult. Just as difficult is 5,500 being "just short". Arrian's source seems able to note such (the 700 group mentioned earlier). It might better be termed a guess at a round figure?

On the command structure, that is a real conundrum. Antigenes really only comes into prominence after Babylon. That he commands the former hypaspists is certain as certainty can be (the Argyraspides). Whether he commanded them here is not at all certain nor is whether he was 'superior' to Seleukos. I would think not. Seleukos,in Babylon, rises to Chiliarch, succeeding Perdikkas. That he does this from command of the agema is not an issue for me (nor command of the regular hypaspists). He seems to feature over the last year(s) of Alexander's life and was high enough to be a part of what transpired in Babylon after the king's death winning the above mentioned office of Chiliarch. Antigenes is not in such a position and plays no part. It's possible Alexander did not expect to be fighting any major engagements on the reconnoitre and "supply mission" through the Makran and that the 'regular' hypaspists were sent back with Krateros; Alexander keeping his foot agema. Again we do not know but, if so, this is likely where Antigenes' command association with the Argyraspides begins.

I'm afraid we're likely never going to know.

Rimless shields are not suited to the Southern Greek style of hoplite warfare, during 'othismos', the pushing part of an engagement, the force of the rearward ranks would asphyxiate those ahead of them; the distictive broad rim of the hoplite shield transfers the force to the thighs and breastbone, apparently (read that somewhere). I would interpret those spears as javelins, what we would term a longche, certainly capable of being thrust but more suited for throwing, we frequently hear of such weapons but I cannot think of a Macedonian infantryman being described as carrying a 'doru'.

Yes, 'just under' is something of a personal decision, it could be there purely to parade a false accuracy, in which case Ptolemy may have given a plain 6,000 (3,000 hypaspists, 1,500 phalangites with 1,000 archers and 500 Agrianians?), the reinforced figures would still not fit, unless one accepts Koinos' unit as an error (as I do) and ignores the lights (which I do not find credible here, the narrative is mainly about their fight, as you say). I have my doubts about those 700, a corruption from 'pente' to 'hepte' is not paleographically impossible or even unlikely, but given the context is clearly one of ad hoc formations it would be wrong to emend it on the grounds that 700 is an awkward number for units of somatophylakes (here the 'agema' or Royal Hypaspists rather than the Seven) and hypaspists, unless 144 was the size of a hypaspist 'hekatostyes' in which case this would be five of them...

Antigenes prominence is conditioned by the sources, of course, to Ptolemy he was an enemy whereas to Hieronymos he was a main player, though ultimately the arch blackguard. Plutarch gives him a story at 70 iv

4 Now Antigenes, the One-eyed, had got himself enrolled as a debtor fraudulently and, on producing somebody who affirmed that he had made a loan to him at the bank, the money was paid over; then his fraud was discovered, and the king, in anger, drove him from his court and deprived him of his command. 5 Antigenes, however, was a splendid soldier, and while he was still a young man and Philip was besieging Perinthus, though a bolt from a catapult smote him in the eye, he would not consent to have the bolt taken out nor give up fighting until he had repelled the enemy and shut them up within their walls. 6 Accordingly, he could not endure with any complacency the disgrace that now fell upon him, but was evidently going to make away with himself from grief and despondency. So the king, fearing this, put away his wrath and ordered him to keep the money.

Maybe this was when he lost the 'arch-hypaspistate' to Neoptolemos, which would explain the latter's invisibility; Perdikkas may have re-instated him, he was certainly withh the Royal Army in Egypt and as a leading conspirator, able to get close to the Regent. He seems to have been popular, if we are to place any faith in the second place he is accorded in Curtius' X-factor Argaead Style We are more in the realm of historical fiction here, though. It might help explain why he had such influence over the Argyraspids, whose actual commander was Teutamos; Antigenes won Susiane as the prize for his timely betrayl, curiously, if Plutarch is to be believed, the site of his former disgrace.