pothos.org

One can read in Arrian that some of the main points made at Hyphases by the ones who wanted to return was 'let the veterans return so they can see their beloved ones and for the young ones to see how rich and respectfull their fathers became so they are eager to enlist for the army etc etc'.

Alexander tried to do that at Opis and then a mutiny took place. Why?

And if that was the case i cant imagine Alexander not screaming ' Why did you stop at Hyphases if you never meant to go home at all? What kind of a sick joke is that?'

I don't know. Maybe i didnt understand the reason that caused the mutiny at Opis.

What do you think?

Well, at Hyphases the veterans likely realized they were nowhere near the end of the world. With no discernible end of the world for them to count on as a return point, they realized that their 6-7 year jaunt could become an indefinite voyage from which most would not return.

Once they got back to known, civilized climes, though, it was a different ball game altogether. Perhaps many of the men, foreseeing an end to major operations, preferred being paid excellent sums for peacetime service in exotic climes as opposed to going home and getting on with actual work.

Or maybe the situation was impacting on Macedonian socio-cultural values. The core of the Macedonian royal army, the hetairoi and Pezhetairoi, carried with them titles and a status that implied at least some relationship to the crown-bearer. If I recall, there's also theories that the army (not just the officers) played a role in confirming the king's ascension. The enrollment of non-Macedonians to the royal army--especially the phalanx and the companion cavalry--would mean that these were no longer solely Macedonian institutions. Perhaps a rich severance package was the way to quell that sort of dissent.

Phoebus wrote:Well, at Hyphases the veterans likely realized they were nowhere near the end of the world. With no discernible end of the world for them to count on as a return point, they realized that their 6-7 year jaunt could become an indefinite voyage from which most would not return.

Once they got back to known, civilized climes, though, it was a different ball game altogether. Perhaps many of the men, foreseeing an end to major operations, preferred being paid excellent sums for peacetime service in exotic climes as opposed to going home and getting on with actual work.

Or maybe the situation was impacting on Macedonian socio-cultural values. The core of the Macedonian royal army, the hetairoi and Pezhetairoi, carried with them titles and a status that implied at least some relationship to the crown-bearer. If I recall, there's also theories that the army (not just the officers) played a role in confirming the king's ascension. The enrollment of non-Macedonians to the royal army--especially the phalanx and the companion cavalry--would mean that these were no longer solely Macedonian institutions. Perhaps a rich severance package was the way to quell that sort of dissent.

Also, the mutiny wasn't so much about them being sent home, as about them being "discarded" in favour of the Asians. Note that, after the reconciliation, the mass weddings, etc. about 10,000 veterans were sent home - but no longer mutinous.

ATB

Phoebus wrote: The core of the Macedonian royal army, the hetairoi and Pezhetairoi, carried with them titles and a status that implied at least some relationship to the crown-bearer. If I recall, there's also theories that the army (not just the officers) played a role in confirming the king's ascension. The enrollment of non-Macedonians to the royal army--especially the phalanx and the companion cavalry--would mean that these were no longer solely Macedonian institutions. Perhaps a rich severance package was the way to quell that sort of dissent.

It can be easy to make too much of the "assembly of the Makedones"; just as easy to make too light of it. At Alexander’s death – and with no heir in place – there were, in effect, three Macedonian courts and assemblies: Babylon, Cyinda and Pella. All had their “Makedones under arms”. Just the beginning of the ungodly mess that would swallow the Argeads.

Alexander played his men from a song sheet conceived almost seven years earlier and written in earnest since the Hydaspes. In cricket parlance, Opis represented the wicket-taking inswinger after a plethora of outswingers. Bowled all ends-up the Macedonians were reduced to pleading.

The titles in the nomenclature of the Macedonian armed forces were a prized and vigorously defended thing. That Iranians and other Asians were being given the title of pezhetairoi and aesthetairoi was bad enough; that Iranians were being given command positions worse; when it was made plain that there were to be Iranian Argyraspids, Iranian companion cavalry (hetairoi) and an Iranian Royal regiment, enough was enough. These men who’d marched thousands of kilometres, sweat buckets and bled for their king were to unceremoniously superannuated and replaced by their lesser in the field.

It is interesting that on Alexander’s funerary carriage he is depicted as being attended by a King’s Guard (“Apple bearers”) and a Macedonian guard (armed in the “normal fashion”). He was dead serious about his Asians it would appear.

The Royal Hypaspists – the sons of the Macedonian nobility – will have resented the Persian presence around their king immensely one suspects.

One might suspect it but it is the Hypaspists that Alexander uses to put down the mutiny and they stay loyal while the Persian units are being instituted, I would not emphasise the long list given in Arrian, that is his own rhetoric (betrayed by his use of the anachronistic 'argyraspids' and the confusion of technical nomenclature, this is Arrian saying 'Look at all these strange words I know' omitting the rejoinder, 'haven't the foggiest what any of them mean!'.

The argyraspids also seem to have fitted in with Eumenes' polyethnic army, their beef being against the Greek in charge rather than the Asians in the ranks. I wonder if they had not become more sympathetic to the syncresis of Macedonian and Persian, certainly more tolerant than the average pikeman Boo Boo.

agesilaos wrote: One might suspect it but it is the Hypaspists that Alexander uses to put down the mutiny and they stay loyal while the Persian units are being instituted,

Arrian is at his most unhelpful when referring to the hypaspist corps. More than once he confuses the royal hypaspists, or the agema, and the regular hypaspists. In this passage he either refers to them as “his shield-bearing guards” or “the Guards”. The clue, if there is one, is in the fact that he leapt from his platform with his officers around him. I’d suggest that the guards in question – in immediate attendance upon him – were the Royal hypaspists and thus the sons of the Macedonian nobility.

It is likely that these will have followed orders to the letter. This is not to suggest the Argyraspids will not have, especially given that all had enough evidence by now what might become of those who flouted the will of the king. It is likely, even if they disagreed with the king’s proposals, that they saw the better course of action was to do as instructed and live to “sort it” later.

agesilaos wrote:I would not emphasise the long list given in Arrian, that is his own rhetoric (betrayed by his use of the anachronistic 'argyraspids' and the confusion of technical nomenclature, this is Arrian saying 'Look at all these strange words I know' omitting the rejoinder, 'haven't the foggiest what any of them mean!'.

He is normally lucid if, on occasion, loose. I’d agree his use of terminology can be frustrating and confusing. I’m not so certain that is the case here though.

What is reasonably clear is that Alexander is planning a major overhaul of his royal army. This will include the placement of the 30,000 Epigoni within the king’s forces. One could argue the toss as to whether Alexander really intended for these units to exist as named but if, as has been well argued, Alexander was using these Asian brigades with Macedonian nomenclature as a lever against his troops in this instance, then it had to be believable. I don’t see any real reason to doubt it was happening.

I think it is uncertain at best that the term “Argyraspids” was, in this instance, anachronistic. Certainly Diodorus’ use of the term at Gaugamela is. It is quite possible that the term was in use – even colloquially – at this time. Certainly in the years immediately following Alexander’s death, with the proliferating “hypaspist” units of the Diadochoi, it was insisted upon so as to set them apart. In any case it is agreed that they were distinguished by their arms and, if Alexander was instituting these units, this would distinguish his “new” version.

That they were being superannuated in the demobilisation is, I think, certain. Alexander is retiring those troops “past the age for service and no longer fit for service”. These two qualifications are, essentially, one and the same as it is unlikely that there were in the royal army soldiers incapable rendering any service. The Argyraspids, at this time, would amply qualify.

Events in Iran some six years later would indicate that this was not quite the case – certainly as far as the Epigoni were concerned when meeting them in the field.

agesilaos wrote:The argyraspids also seem to have fitted in with Eumenes' polyethnic army, their beef being against the Greek in charge rather than the Asians in the ranks. I wonder if they had not become more sympathetic to the syncresis of Macedonian and Persian, certainly more tolerant than the average pikeman Boo Boo.

There may have been a little more acceptance but I don’t think that service in Eumenes satrapal coalition can be adduced as strong proof. Antigonus himself had over 8,000 of the Epigoni in his phalanx and it seems the Macedonianans – equal in number – had no issue serving with them. This would be the order of the day for the armies operating after Alexander.

The source tradition is that the Argyraspids took up service in Eumenes’ army under the instruction of the “kings” via Olympias and Polyperchon. From this they would not be budged either by Ptolemy, Antigonus or Seleucus and Peithon. This fits with their service to the Argead house and need not be doubted I’d think.

As well, within this army they were very much the senior corps of Macedonians. In fact, they were likely the single largest group as it is apparent that the “coalition” forces were short of Macedonians. It was they who were consulted on the decisions to be taken and they who decided the issue after Peucestas’ attempted feting and bribery in Persis. They were, in every sense, the big boys on the block.

Plutarch (and Nepos) is at pains to stress the constant plotting by the Argyraspids and their leaders against “the Greek”. The Diodorus version is, to me, somewhat more realistic. The poisoned tradition represented in Plutarch is likely a source with no love for Antigenes (or the Argyraspids). The description of Antigenes plotting with Teutamos and others is not entirely consistent with the behaviour he'd displayed to date. It is worth noting that, in the Diodorus version (of Hieronymus), the Argyraspids remain loyal despite wooing and are, in fact, led in that direction by Antigenes whom Plutarch paints as a plotting villain. They had many opportunities to betray their general. In the end that only occurred when they discovered their life’s possessions (and families) were in Antigonus’ hands having just destroyed his phalanx in the field. Interestingly is the dastardly Peucestas they initially – and correctly – blame for this.

Antigonus certainly had Antigenes pegged as to close to the royal general – hence his grisly end.

On the various Guards at Opis ; VII 8 iii 'personally pointing out to the Hypaspists (tois hypaspistais) whom they were to arrest' Here the normal hypaspists, then. VII 11 ii 'The Macedonians had been immediately stunned by his speech,and stayed in silence there by the platform, none following the king when he left save the attendant Companions ( hoi amph' auton hetairoi) and the Bodyguards (hoi somatophylakes);' here I would interpret the 'attendant Companions as the two of the Seven who were on duty cf VII 23 ii, and the Bodyguard here means the agema (or the pezhetairoi) which could mean that the hypaspists mentioned earlier are these as well or that the other chiliarchia remained to watch the mutineers.

It is only one verse later that Arrian reels off the complaints that Persians are being drafted into units with Macedonian names - an agema, pezhetairoi, and asthetairoi, argyraspids and a new royal cavalry agema. Since the first agema must mean that of the hypaspists which was the pezhetairoi and the argyraspids, and none of these did actually recieve Asiatic drafts, it is fair to say that this list is Arrian expanding on his source's statement about 'Macedonian names' by trotting a few out; why no hypaspists? He'd used the term earlier in the chapter and that greek love of variety drives him to anachronism (if they were hypaspists at 11ii why are they argyraspids at 23 ii? It is the same day!).

agesilaos wrote:On the various Guards at Opis ; VII 8 iii 'personally pointing out to the Hypaspists (tois hypaspistais) whom they were to arrest' Here the normal hypaspists, then. VII 11 ii 'The Macedonians had been immediately stunned by his speech,and stayed in silence there by the platform, none following the king when he left save the attendant Companions ( hoi amph' auton hetairoi) and the Bodyguards (hoi somatophylakes);' here I would interpret the 'attendant Companions as the two of the Seven who were on duty cf VII 23 ii, and the Bodyguard here means the agema (or the pezhetairoi) which could mean that the hypaspists mentioned earlier are these as well or that the other chiliarchia remained to watch the mutineers.

I'd be much oblidged for the anglicised Greek for the passage here. I agree entirely aside from the first. I think, given your brief Greek insertions, that my original interpretation is correct: the "hypapspists" ("Guards") are the royal hypaspists. They are one and the same throughout. The proximity to the king denotes it.

You too follow the Ptolemaic description of the hypaspist "guard" as the "pezhetairoi"? This, it seems, was Philip's nomenclature. Interesting.

Again, Arrian's use of these terms (the "bodyguard" the "confidential" bodyguard; the "Guards"; the "shield-bearing" Guard etc) is sometimes infuriating.

VII 8 iiii 'Alexandros...katapedesas syn tois amph'auton hegemosin apo tou bematos xyllabein tous epiphanestatous ton taraxanton to plethos keleuei, autos tei cheiri epideiknyon tois hypaspistais oustinas chre syllabanein.'

VII 11 ii 'hoi de Makedones en te toi parautika akousantes ton logon ekpeplegmenoi sigei emenon autou pros toi bemati oude tis hekolouthese toi basilei apallattomenoi oti me hoi amph' auton hetairoi te kai hoi somatophylakes, hoi de polloi oute menontes ho ti prattosin he legosineichon, oute apallassthai hethelon.'

As well as equating the hypaspists in the first passage with the somatophylakes in the second, the phrase 'tois amph' auton hegemosin' in the first may be parallel to the 'amph' auton hetairoi' in the second. So the officers are really just two of the Seven.

It is not certain that 'somatophylakes' when applied to the hypaspists must mean the agema it could just be a general term we do not even know if the term is actually a fixed body or the title given to those alloted the guard duty by lot, agema for a day as it were. Heckel posits a sort of cursus honarum with the Macedonian nobility working their way through the pages and the other chiliarchiai to the agema and thence to higher command, I am unsure as to whether there was much ancient evidence for this theory attractive though it is.

Arrian's usage is vague but it is rarely clarified by translators viz here where somatophylakes has been translated as confidential bodyguards ie the Seven, whereas the context demonstrates that it means the hypaspists (probably the agema).

agesilaos wrote:It is not certain that 'somatophylakes' when applied to the hypaspists must mean the agema it could just be a general term we do not even know if the term is actually a fixed body or the title given to those alloted the guard duty by lot, agema for a day as it were. Heckel posits a sort of cursus honarum with the Macedonian nobility working their way through the pages and the other chiliarchiai to the agema and thence to higher command, I am unsure as to whether there was much ancient evidence for this theory attractive though it is.

I have to note upfront that I find Heckel’s cursus honorum theory most attractive. You are correct on the ancient evidence: very little can be adduced to illuminate either the hypaspists or their agema. That they existed is beyond doubt (Anabasis, 1.1.11; 1.8.3; 3.17.2; for example); their precise nature is clouded (I sound like Yoda). Heckel’s theory has the benefit of not only being eminently sensible but also possessing the ability to account for some otherwise obstinately obtuse passages in Arrian.

For instance:

…he ordered his bodyguards (somatophylakes) and personal companions (hetairoi) to take their shields, mount their horses, and ride to the hill; and when they reached it, if those who had occupied the position awaited them, he said that half of them were to leap from their horses, and to fight as foot-soldiers, being mingled with the cavalry. [1.6.5]

…he (Alexander) took the bodyguards (somatophylakes), the shield-bearing guards, the archers, and Agrianians…[4.3.2]

Alexander himself embarked in a thirty-oared galley and went over, accompanied by Ptolemy, Perdiccas, and Lysimachus, the confidential body-guards, Seleucus, one of the Companions, who was afterwards king, and half of the shield-bearing guards…In front of all the cavalry he posted the horse-archers, and placed next to the cavalry in front of the other infantry the royal shield-bearing guards under the command of Seleucus. [5.13.1 & 4]

A dog’s breakfast of terminology as one would state in the vernacular. We have the agema of the hypaspists referred to as somatophylakes and “royal shield-bearing infantry”. Just to thoroughly confuse the issue, Arrian also refers to them as hetairoi:

Admetus was the first to mount the wall; but while cheering on his men to mount, he was struck with a spear and died on the spot. After him, Alexander with the Companions got possession of the wall…[2.23.6]

That these hetairoi are, in fact, hypsapists is clear by Arrian’s earlier descriptions of the dispositions:

The shield-bearing guards occupied one of these vessels, which he had put under the command of Admetus; and the other was occupied by the regiment of Coenus…[2.23.2]

The fact that are the agema is emphasised by Alexander’s direct command over them as Arrian makes plain when he claims that “Alexander himself, with the shield-bearing guards” intended to assault the wall. Indeed he has Alexander filling the dead Admetus’ place when he takes the wall with the aforementioned hetairoi (Companions).

All of this makes life exceedingly difficult as well as indicating that Arrian is nowhere near as certain in his terminology as many would think. The same issues bedevil Diodorus who is obviously referring to the agema of the hypaspists when he speaks of Philips “somatophylakes” at his murder (16.93.2ff). Either that or Alexander somehow felt the need to re-promote both Leonnatus and Perdiccas to positions among the seven they already had.

And so, yes, we come down to exactly what the term somatophylake meant at the time. It is likely that the terminology altered over time and that somatophylake may well have applied to Philip’s royal hypaspist guard. It is a similar problem to the overly literal translation of hypaspist which focuses solely on aspis and therefore shield size. All in all though, I’d lean toward the fact that the king, on foot, will have been protected by the “graduates of the school of pages” just as Pausanias protected Philip. If the term "bodyguards" (somatophylakes) in 1.1.6 above refers to hypaspist guards - and I think it does - then that these are to mount horses would indicate they are well to do rather than ordinary or "regular" hypaspists. It makes sense to me that this group would be sons of the nobility and commanded by nobles such as Seleucus or, dare it be said, Hephaestion.

All descriptions of the Malli town wounding of Alexander accord in the fact that he entered accompanied by few of his “guards”. Indisputably Lysimachus and Aristonus are of the seven, Peucestas, though, most certainly is not. Nor are the others mentioned in the sources: Habreas and Limnaios. It is of little moment which names are correct for what matters is how the persons are described. If they are in fact “guards” they can only be royal hypaspists or hypaspists. That said, it is rather difficult to conceive of a noble such as Peucestas serving with the regular drafts. He will have certainly been as Diodorus describes him: a hypaspist and a royal one at that.

Thanks for the Greek of Arrian’s passage. I agree the somatophylakes in the second are indeed the hypaspists of the first. Given all of what I’ve trolled through above, it’s surprising Arrian hasn’t referred to them as hetairoi!

In a book by Peter Tsouras, there is a chapter entitled To the Best in which Tsouras discusses the mutiny at Opis on pp.101-103. To paraphrase Tsouras in a sentence is difficult, but the gist is that Alexander had become so isolated and so surrounded by sycophants that he was no longer able to as close to his own men as in his early days. Their distrust of his motives for paying their debts and their reaction to his giving them leave made him suspicious of them. In the end, after addressing the mutinous group as you well know the story, he managed to cook up a way to replace the Macedonians with Persians and to adopt the Persian practice of the royal kiss, thus, his ploy works when the Macedonians all break down and return to plead his acceptance of them.

What I find most interesting is who recorded this drama. The interpretation of the scene intrigues me more than anything else. If you can find the movie that was made in India, you should try to see it. Whenever I can be sure of which dvd it is on, I will make it known. At this writing, I don't recall on which story of Alexander I have seen that film but it is really interesting.

Paralus, re Tyre the hetairoi mentioned may not be the hypaspists but the asthetairoi of Coenos' unit either an Arrianic lapse, since as you say he has Alexander on Admetus' ship or a scribal slip, asthetairoi being unusual and replaced by te familiar.

Anything, I suppose, is possible. We are, after all, discussing Arrian's muddled terminolgy. The problem is that the one thing Arrian is clear about is the disposition of the forces and Alexander's plans (2.23.1ff):

In the first place he shook down a large piece of the wall; and when the breach appeared to be sufficiently wide, he ordered the vessels conveying the military engines to retire, and brought up two others, which carried the bridges, which he intended to throw upon the breach in the wall. The shieldbearing guards occupied one of these vessels, which he had put under the command of Admetus; and the other was occupied by the regiment of Coenus, called the foot Companions. Alexander himself, with the shield-bearing guards, intended to scale the wall where it might be practicable...

...When Alexander's ships drew close to the city and the bridges were thrown from them upon the wall, the shield-bearing guards mounted valiantly along these upon the wall; for their captain, Admetus, proved himself brave on that occasion, and Alexander accompanied them both as a courageous parti cipant in the action itself, and as a witness of brilliant and dangerous feats of valour performed by others....

It seems clear that Alexander intended assaulting the breach with his hypaspists and was abord their ship with Admetus the royal hypaspist commander for that purpose. Coenus, one suspects, led the other. This would make eminent sense as Alexander will have been protected by his royal hypaspist guard when on foot.

This is not to say that slip has not ocurred and that Arrian is referring to the wall being captured by Alexander and the entire assault force. I generally find the easier solution to be the most likely: that Alexander has taken the breach with his hypapsists ("hetairoi") and that Arrian is referring to the hypaspists as his 'hetairoi".

Must see what other references there are.

Your translation seems fuller than the one I remember, I'll have to check it out with the Greek. I did trawl through Arrian's use of 'hetairos' once and I don't recall it applying to the Hypaspists anywhere else.

As you say the plan does seem to point to Alexander going in with the Hypaspists but I have always found Arrian's resolution of the siege unsatisfactory; for a start the two ship assault force can only have consisted of about 240 fighting men, the Romans got 120 marines on a quinquereme, so it's rather generous to give Alexander so many on a quadrires. Also the rival tradition emphasises the land assault via the mole and implies the naval assault failed, going from memory. 240 would be enough as a coup-de-main but the Tyrian resistance is said to be fierce so I find the force too small.

Of course Arrian may be using 'hetairoi' in its general sense as the 'accompanying men' which would include both the hypaspists and the asthetairoi of Koenos' unit.

Although I find this quite interesting, I’m sure there are others who wonder at just what it is we find of interest in all of this! At the risk of Amyntoros declaring that her head is spinning with this ‘airois’, those ‘pists’ and sundry ‘phylakes’, here we go again.

agesilaos wrote:Of course Arrian may be using 'hetairoi' in its general sense as the 'accompanying men' which would include both the hypaspists and the asthetairoi of Koenos' unit.

Indeed. As I remarked above he may simply mean those with him on the wall. It does read though that the aesthetaoiroi were involved in their own discrete action as they are on a separate ship and one would suspect their part of the battlement was not Alexander’s.

It all comes down to translation (so if you get to the Greek we may shed some light) and, in that regard, De Selincourt’s reads somewhat clearer when discussing dispositions:

One of these vessels, commanded by Admetus, was taken over by a brigade of the Guards, and the other by Coenus’ battalion of heavy infantry. Alexander himself was with the guards ready to mount the breach wherever it was practicable.

So it appears that Alexander is exercising command over these “Guards” troops and therefore they would be the hypaspistae basilikoi or royal hypaspists. This is further supported by the line describing securing of the breach and the death of Admetos:

The first part of the wall that was captured was where Alexander had posted himself, the Tyrians being easily beaten back from it, as soon as the Macedonians found firm footing, but at the same time a way of entrance not abrupt on every side. Admetos was the first to mount the wall; but while cheering on his men to mount, he was struck with a spear and died on the spot. After him, Alexander with the Companions got possession of the wall; and when some of the towers and the parts of the wall between them were in his hands, he advanced through the battlements to the royal palace, because the descent into the city that way seemed the easiest.

Alexander then advances into the town where the Tyrians had withdrawn to make a stand at the shrine of Agenor. Here Arrian describes Alexander attacking them and putting them to fight, again exercising direct command of the hypaspists: “Against these Alexander advanced with his shield-bearing guards…” It is what follows that might indicate that Coenus’ aesthetairoi were involved in the same, though separate, action:

The main body of the Tyrians deserted the wall when they saw it in the enemy's possession; and rallying opposite what was called the sanctuary of Agenor, they there turned round to resist the Macedonians. Against these Alexander advanced with his shield-bearing guards, destroyed the men who fought there, and pursued those who fled. Great was the slaughter also made both by those who were now occupying the city from the harbour and by the regiment of Coenus, which had also entered it.

All in all I’d think that Arrian has applied the term ‘hetairoi’ to the troops that Alexander is in personal command of. He has slipped here I think. It is well accepted that, outside of pezhetairoi, hetairos was a term reserved for the noble. Arrian has confused the agema of the hypaspists with the term hetairos.

This is likely due to Arrian’s inconsistency in the use of his terms. The description of the action at Tyre mirrors Arrian’s earliest description of the hypaspists and hypaspistae basilikoi in the action against the Thracians:

He himself took his own guard, the shield-bearing infantry and the Agrianians, and led them to the left.

De Senincourt translates this as Alexander “taking command of his personal Guard and the other Guards regiments” thus placing Alexander on foot and exercising command over the royal hypaspists and the regular hypaspists. Had he continued this terminology elsewhere and at Tyre there would be minimal confusion.

agesilaos wrote:Your translation seems fuller than the one I remember, I'll have to check it out with the Greek. I did trawl through Arrian's use of 'hetairos' once and I don't recall it applying to the Hypaspists anywhere else... .

Heckel gives several examples. That of Tyre has been discussed but there is also the hill occupied by Alexander and his hetairoi (1.1.6). This group seems to include both somatophylakes and hetairoi (1.1.5). The Greek would be illuminating here. There are others 2.27.1 (where Neoptolemus, fighting as a royal hypaspist is called ‘heatairoi’) and the above mentioned Seleucus at 5.13.1. Possibly the more interesting is Arrian’s description of Leonnatus, after Issus, as ‘hetairoi’(2.12.5):

When Alexander heard this, he sent Leonnatus, one of his hetairoi (Companions), to them, with injunctions to tell them, "Darius is still alive; in his flight he left his arms and mantle in the chariot; and these are the only things of his that Alexander has."

It is clear that Leonnatus, at this time, was not one of the Seven: that would come later in Egypt. We also have no evidence of any command for him at this stage. He is earlier referred to, by Diodorus (16.94.4), as somatophlylake:

Immediately one group of the bodyguards (sômatophulakôn) hurried to the body of the king while the rest poured out in pursuit of the assassin; among these last were Leonnatus and Perdiccas and Attalus.

This action is prefaced by Philip instructing his “bodyguards” to follow at a distance (93.1) and the story of Pausanias’ rape and subsequent advancement, by Philip, among the “bodyguards” (93.8). The word used at 93.1 is doryphoroi and at 93.8 sômatophulakian. Pausanias strikes when he notices that the “bodyguards” (doruphorôn) are standing somewhat apart.

The easiest solution to this is that the term somatophylake (“bodyguard”) is here meant to denote the royal hypaspists – the doryphoroi or spear bearers. If it denotes the Seven then Leonnatus and Perdiccas are already of the Seven in 336. The notion that they were “Alexander’s somatophylakes” strikes me as unnecessary and messy. Were that the case there will have been no need for Alexander to make them such – again – in Asia. If, as it seems did happen, Alexander kept the current seven at his accession, Leonnatus and Perdiccas are then “demoted” to other positions: Leonnatus to the royal hypaspists and Perdiccas to infantry commander.

It is far easier to assume that they are both hypaspistae basilikoi at the time of Philip’s murder and that Leonnatus is still such at Issus. His promotion from the agema to the Seven will be mirrored by Peucestas’ elevation from the same position after the return from India.