pothos.org

The battle of Issos is very frequently treated, and it is taken as read that the Macedonian phalanx, struggling across the river lost cohesion and was severely handled by the mercenaries of Dareios, after all Arrian is quite explicit on the matter;

II x 5 ‘…the Macedonian centre did not set to with equal impetus, and finding the riverbanks precipitous in many places, were unable to maintain their front in unbroken line; and the Greeks attacked where they saw the phalanx had been particularly torn apart…Here it was that Ptolemaeus son of Seleucus fell, after showing himself a brave man, and about a hundred and twenty Macedonians of note.’ Loeb Brunt p159.

‘…hoi de kata meson Makedonon oute tei isei opoudei hemanto tou ergou kai pollachei chremnodesi taisochthais entygchanontes to metopon tes phalangos ou dynatoi egenonto en tei autei taxei diasosasthai…kai entautha piptei Ptolemaios te ho Seleukou, aner agathos genomenos, kai alloi es eikosi malista kai hekaton ton ouk emelemenon Makedonon’

Earlier a Ptolemaios is described as leading the taxis next to Meleagros’ in the centre of the line (II vii 4). So just what is the problem?

It is the formula ‘ ton ouk emelemenon Makedonon’ ; how could the rank and file of a phalanx unit be described as ‘Macedonians of note’? They are the lowest rank in the army!

There is a big clue as to what is actually going on, though in the description of the sallies from Halikarnassos.

At I xxii 7 ‘including Ptolemaios the bodyguard, Klearchos, the commander of the archers, Adaios the chiliarch and other Macedonians of repute.’

‘…outoi kai alloi ton ouk hegelemenon Makedonon.’

Now at Halikarnassos the Macedonians involved are clearly the Hypaspists cf. I xxi 4 ‘Ptolemaios the Royal bodyguard met them bringing up the battalions of Adaeus and Timander and some of the light troops..’

Ptolemaios ho somatophylax ho basilikos, ten te Adaiou kai Timandrou hama hoi taxin agon kai estin ous ton psilon.’

‘Battalions’ should have been rendered ‘units’ of course, but since we know the names of the taxiarchs at Granikos and Issos and neither Addaios nor Timandros appeart AND Addaios is given the explicit rank of chiliarch, the commander of a thousand, ie one of the three hypaspist chiliarchiai. It follows, therefore that the formula ‘Macedonians of note’ indicates hypaspists.

Given Heckel’s speculations on the Macedonian cursus honorum, this is not surprising; the hypaspist corps was made up of the sons of the nobility not the general peasantry who manned the phalanx units.

Things now get bad for Arrian; Heckel, Marshals of Alexander separates the Ptolemies, ‘the Bodyguard’ p 259, the son of Seleukos p286, the taxiarch is identified with the son of Seleukos. Yet when we first meet Ptolemy son of Seleukos he is also styled ‘the Royal Bodyguard’ I xxiv 1 ‘Ptolemaion te ton Seleukou, ena ton somatophylakon ton basilikon..’.

As Heckel notes under his Ptolemy son of Seleukos, the phrase ‘Ho somatophylax ton basilikon’ need not signify one of the Seven it can also mean a member of the ‘agema’ of the hypaspists. I would suggest that this is too restrictive and that the term could apply to any of the hypaspists, especially in Greek authors. However, the fact that Ptolemy is seemingly superior to Addaios and Timandros may well indicate that he was the senior chiliarch i.e. the commander of the agema, the archihypaspist, Nikanor being outside the ranks of any one unit.

The only reason to separate Ptolemy the son of Seleukos the Royal Bodyguard from Ptolemy the bodyguard is that Arrian has the former killed at Issos and the latter at Halikarnassos. Formerly, this would have been enough to end the argument but now Arrian is recognised as having been quite careless in his treatment of the sources. It is even suggested that he has confused the commander of the archers Kleandros, whom he kills off fighting the Pisidians, and Klearchos who also dies at Halikarnassos (Marshals p336). It is surely possible that Arrian has mistaken the casualties, maybe it was Addaios and Timandros who died but Arrian had Ptolemy in his mind, he had reported the appointment of yet another to the satrapy of Karia just a chapter before.

Now, if we allow the identification of the son of Seleukos and the Bodyguard we ought to resist the conflation with the taxiarch. This despite the fact that Arrian says that Polyperchon son of Simmias took over the taxis left vacant by the death of Ptolemy son of Seleukos II xi 2 it is likely that both the taxiarch and the son of Seleukos fell but Arrian confused the two. The clinchers being Polyperchon’s appointment and the specific notice of the son of Seleukos dying at the same point as the 120 notable Macedonians who must be hypaspists. It would be possible to make a case for a simpler confusion with only the taxiarch being present and dying, but there seems little reason for the patronymic to be introduced, the details of Halikarnassos being some way back. It would seem that Ptolemy son of Seleukos was reported killed at Issos by Arrian’s source.

It might be objected that the ‘notable Macedonians’ is just a standard formula, however it occurs only at these two instances in the first of which it can only mean ‘hypaspists’. See I ii 7, I vi 4, I xx 10, I xviii 8, II xxiv 4, and III xv 6 all casualty notices which use neutral words ‘pezoi’ foot, ‘stratiotoi’ soldiers or in II xxiv 4 ‘hypaspistai’; this could scupper the whole thing; but I believe that the early books of Ptolemy were heavily influenced by Kallisthenes and his Greek phraseology and this shows in the regular use of ‘hoplite’ for the Macedonian soldier. So this is merely the boundary where Ptolemy finds his own voice, or Arrian is following Aristoboulos.

The shifting of the dislocation in the line would mean that Alexander’s charge, was mounted, pace Hammond, and impetuous as the sources say and its rapidity left the hypaspists exposed to attack from the Greek mercenaries. Rather than the main phalanx breaking up crossing the river. This has implications for the numbers of mercenaries and their position in the line. It would follow that the Greeks were immediately adjacent to the point of Alexander’s charge, since it was upon the exposed flank of the next unit, the agema that their charge fell, this in turn left Dareios to be protected by his cavalry guard, his front having been stripped. It would also follow that the Kardakes on the Persian right were able to effectively resist the phalanx, making sense of the difficulty of the crossing and the barricades the Persians had erected.

This battle is much more closely run than the generally accepted version and initially it is only the Companions that are successful with the hypaspists being driven back and the phalanx stymied. The ultimate success of the Thessalians on the left may well have seemed more significant and perhaps independent of Alexander’s own. Which makes Philotas’ later analysis of who deserved the laurels much more understandable.

Most interesting and rather too much to deal with before bed. A couple of quickies though.

agesilaos wrote: As Heckel notes under his Ptolemy son of Seleukos, the phrase ‘Ho somatophylax ton basilikon’ need not signify one of the Seven it can also mean a member of the ‘agema’ of the hypaspists. I would suggest that this is too restrictive and that the term could apply to any of the hypaspists, especially in Greek authors. However, the fact that Ptolemy is seemingly superior to Addaios and Timandros may well indicate that he was the senior chiliarch i.e. the commander of the agema, the archihypaspist, Nikanor being outside the ranks of any one unit. […] Given Heckel’s speculations on the Macedonian cursus honorum, this is not surprising; the hypaspist corps was made up of the sons of the nobility not the general peasantry who manned the phalanx units

The first is clearly correct else we have “personal adjutants / guards” – somatophylakes – left, right and centre as well as in the hundreds. Whether the term could apply to any of the hypaspists is another thing. The two are separated in battle descriptions often enough and often enough by as many different terms. In fact the varied use of terminology leads Hammond to postulate multiple corps of guards where it is not necessary. The classic case being Arrian’s “hypaspists of the companions (hetairoi)” in the Granicus line-up; the utter confusion of his Hydaspes line up (the royal hypaspists, the royal “foot guard” and the hypaspists) and his description of the action at Thebes (agema of the guards, guard of the Macedones).

Heckel is correct in there being the two: the 'regular' hypaspists and the royal hypaspists (the latter made up of sons of the nobility). Once that is accepted things run a little more logically and Hammond’s postulation that, at Gaugamela, Hephaestion was wounded leading the 'King's Own' Somatophylakes - a third division of the Guards - is unnecessary: he commanded the agema of the hypaspists or royal hypaspists (which Hammond equates with the "agema of the Macedones", the "agema", and "the King's Own Guard") on the day who are referred to as such in Arrian’s narrative. Greek sources, such as preserved in Diodorus, refer to the hypaspist guards of the king as doryphoroi. This might just have a secondary purpose: such attendant spearmen are the always the retinue of tyrants and the like.

Arrian’s use of terminology does not help nor his accuracy with his sources – as you say. Arrian famously has Krateros' brigade both in the centre of the Granicus battle line and holding the left end of the same line. Translations vary as well. De Selincourt, picking up on your suggestion of Ptolemy being the superior, calls him “captain of the royal guard”.

The Halicarnassus action is not entirely clear cut though. Ptolemy, Timandros and Addaios are at the Tripylum gate and Alexander is at a breach in the wall. Arrian states that an attack was not expected from the Tripylum gate and so, one suspects, Alexander expected the action to be at the breach where is described as “in command himself”. Although those near him – or at least in the vicinity – are operating siege hardware, that Alexander is in command and on foot would necessitate the presence of his “foot guard”. One would think that he certainly had the agema of the hypaspists in close attendance - especially as he was not expecting a sortie from the Tripylon gate. Alexander evidently expected the action to take place where he commanded in person. As with Tyre, I'd expect that he'd assault the breach with the hypaspists - particularly the royal hypaspists.

Perhaps – if he is leading the agema in person – he might depute his agema commander to operations elsewhere? Or perhaps this Ptolemy was not, in fact, the commander of the agema of the hypaspists.

The break in the line will have to wait: the inside of my eyelids are calling for a protracted viewing. They not to be denied...

It may seem obvious that Alexander would be with the hypaspists or that they would be posted at the position of supreme danger but we know next to nothing about the dispositions at Halikarnassos. It is likely that Alexander was attended by the company of hypaspists on personal guard duty; those designated 'toi hetairoi amph'autou' elsewhere, at I xxii 2 we find 'ton de amph'Alexandron auton' but this does not indicate that there was a whole unit of hypaspists in attendance cf VII xxiv where a modest number is implied.

During a siege the normal prctice would be to have lines of pickets with the majority of troops resting in camp unless 'assault were intended upon the city'; the topography of Halikarnassos would dictate where the camp/camps would be, not having a map of the city I cannot speculate where they would be. The son of Seleucus must have been a senior officer in order to command the respect of Addaios and Timandros, in an army so riven by rivalry it would be odd, to say the least, for a Macedonian noble to subordinate himself to another of even equal rank.

I wish it had been possible to condense the post but it would actually be easier to expand it!

agesilaos wrote:The battle of Issos is very frequently treated, and it is taken as read that the Macedonian phalanx, struggling across the river lost cohesion and was severely handled by the mercenaries of Dareios, after all Arrian is quite explicit on the matter;

II x 5 ‘…the Macedonian centre did not set to with equal impetus, and finding the riverbanks precipitous in many places, were unable to maintain their front in unbroken line; and the Greeks attacked where they saw the phalanx had been particularly torn apart…Here it was that Ptolemaeus son of Seleucus fell, after showing himself a brave man, and about a hundred and twenty Macedonians of note.’ Loeb Brunt p159.

‘…hoi de kata meson Makedonon oute tei isei opoudei hemanto tou ergou kai pollachei chremnodesi taisochthais entygchanontes to metopon tes phalangos ou dynatoi egenonto en tei autei taxei diasosasthai…kai entautha piptei Ptolemaios te ho Seleukou, aner agathos genomenos, kai alloi es eikosi malista kai hekaton ton ouk emelemenon Makedonon’

Earlier a Ptolemaios is described as leading the taxis next to Meleagros’ in the centre of the line (II vii 4). So just what is the problem?

It is the formula ‘ ton ouk emelemenon Makedonon’ ; how could the rank and file of a phalanx unit be described as ‘Macedonians of note’? They are the lowest rank in the army!

There is a big clue as to what is actually going on, though in the description of the sallies from Halikarnassos.

At I xxii 7 ‘including Ptolemaios the bodyguard, Klearchos, the commander of the archers, Adaios the chiliarch and other Macedonians of repute.’

‘…outoi kai alloi ton ouk hegelemenon Makedonon.’

Now at Halikarnassos the Macedonians involved are clearly the Hypaspists cf. I xxi 4 ‘Ptolemaios the Royal bodyguard met them bringing up the battalions of Adaeus and Timander and some of the light troops..’

Ptolemaios ho somatophylax ho basilikos, ten te Adaiou kai Timandrou hama hoi taxin agon kai estin ous ton psilon.’

‘Battalions’ should have been rendered ‘units’ of course, but since we know the names of the taxiarchs at Granikos and Issos and neither Addaios nor Timandros appeart AND Addaios is given the explicit rank of chiliarch, the commander of a thousand, ie one of the three hypaspist chiliarchiai. It follows, therefore that the formula ‘Macedonians of note’ indicates hypaspists.

Given Heckel’s speculations on the Macedonian cursus honorum, this is not surprising; the hypaspist corps was made up of the sons of the nobility not the general peasantry who manned the phalanx units.

Things now get bad for Arrian; Heckel, Marshals of Alexander separates the Ptolemies, ‘the Bodyguard’ p 259, the son of Seleukos p286, the taxiarch is identified with the son of Seleukos. Yet when we first meet Ptolemy son of Seleukos he is also styled ‘the Royal Bodyguard’ I xxiv 1 ‘Ptolemaion te ton Seleukou, ena ton somatophylakon ton basilikon..’.

As Heckel notes under his Ptolemy son of Seleukos, the phrase ‘Ho somatophylax ton basilikon’ need not signify one of the Seven it can also mean a member of the ‘agema’ of the hypaspists. I would suggest that this is too restrictive and that the term could apply to any of the hypaspists, especially in Greek authors. However, the fact that Ptolemy is seemingly superior to Addaios and Timandros may well indicate that he was the senior chiliarch i.e. the commander of the agema, the archihypaspist, Nikanor being outside the ranks of any one unit.

The only reason to separate Ptolemy the son of Seleukos the Royal Bodyguard from Ptolemy the bodyguard is that Arrian has the former killed at Issos and the latter at Halikarnassos. Formerly, this would have been enough to end the argument but now Arrian is recognised as having been quite careless in his treatment of the sources. It is even suggested that he has confused the commander of the archers Kleandros, whom he kills off fighting the Pisidians, and Klearchos who also dies at Halikarnassos (Marshals p336). It is surely possible that Arrian has mistaken the casualties, maybe it was Addaios and Timandros who died but Arrian had Ptolemy in his mind, he had reported the appointment of yet another to the satrapy of Karia just a chapter before.

Now, if we allow the identification of the son of Seleukos and the Bodyguard we ought to resist the conflation with the taxiarch. This despite the fact that Arrian says that Polyperchon son of Simmias took over the taxis left vacant by the death of Ptolemy son of Seleukos II xi 2 it is likely that both the taxiarch and the son of Seleukos fell but Arrian confused the two. The clinchers being Polyperchon’s appointment and the specific notice of the son of Seleukos dying at the same point as the 120 notable Macedonians who must be hypaspists. It would be possible to make a case for a simpler confusion with only the taxiarch being present and dying, but there seems little reason for the patronymic to be introduced, the details of Halikarnassos being some way back. It would seem that Ptolemy son of Seleukos was reported killed at Issos by Arrian’s source.

It might be objected that the ‘notable Macedonians’ is just a standard formula, however it occurs only at these two instances in the first of which it can only mean ‘hypaspists’. See I ii 7, I vi 4, I xx 10, I xviii 8, II xxiv 4, and III xv 6 all casualty notices which use neutral words ‘pezoi’ foot, ‘stratiotoi’ soldiers or in II xxiv 4 ‘hypaspistai’; this could scupper the whole thing; but I believe that the early books of Ptolemy were heavily influenced by Kallisthenes and his Greek phraseology and this shows in the regular use of ‘hoplite’ for the Macedonian soldier. So this is merely the boundary where Ptolemy finds his own voice, or Arrian is following Aristoboulos.

The shifting of the dislocation in the line would mean that Alexander’s charge, was mounted, pace Hammond, and impetuous as the sources say and its rapidity left the hypaspists exposed to attack from the Greek mercenaries. Rather than the main phalanx breaking up crossing the river. This has implications for the numbers of mercenaries and their position in the line. It would follow that the Greeks were immediately adjacent to the point of Alexander’s charge, since it was upon the exposed flank of the next unit, the agema that their charge fell, this in turn left Dareios to be protected by his cavalry guard, his front having been stripped. It would also follow that the Kardakes on the Persian right were able to effectively resist the phalanx, making sense of the difficulty of the crossing and the barricades the Persians had erected.

This battle is much more closely run than the generally accepted version and initially it is only the Companions that are successful with the hypaspists being driven back and the phalanx stymied. The ultimate success of the Thessalians on the left may well have seemed more significant and perhaps independent of Alexander’s own. Which makes Philotas’ later analysis of who deserved the laurels much more understandable.

how to hypnotize someone

I really don't understand the purpose in copying and pasting an entire post and then submitting it without any further comment. As the above is a first post I'm going to assume that there was an error or perhaps some confusion as to how to correctly submit a response. If you are having any difficulties understanding how the system works please feel free to send me a PM and I will do what I can to help.

However, I do want to record here the fact that a good number of new members have had their posts deleted because they contained little more than sales links to personal websites. Therefore, I'll take this opportunity to both welcome new members and to ask them, if it is their intention to post, to please make useful contributions to the debates on Pothos so that we may continue to maintain the integrity and reputation of the forum.

Thanks.