It is illogical to expect that the king, on foot, is to be guarded by a troop of fourteen year old stripplings. If we are to take the "Alexander sarcophagus" as representing some reality, there were aspis and spear carrying troops in the immediate vicinity of the king. Nothing indicates young fourteeen year olds and it is inconceiveble, and far from amusing, that Philip (or Alexander) would trust his person, in hand to hand combat, to such troops. These are almost certainly the members of the agema of the hypaspsists: 18 plus year-old sons of hetairoi. These are the troops that would accompany Alexader in his assault on the walls of tyre ("hetairoi" so Arian) and so singly preserve his life in India (Peucestas). They are most certainly not fourteen year old juniors whom one might imagine the best hoplites of Greece to make "mince-meat" of.Taphoi wrote:Actually, it was precisely the duty of the Pages to guard the king against armed threats: that is why the Pages Conspiracy against Alexander was feasible.
Funnily enogh, that would be Diodorus...Taphoi wrote:And (amusingly) it has been your position that the Pages might be described as Somatophylakes.
Diod. 17.65.1:
From Macedonia also came fifty sons of the king's Friends sent by their fathers to serve as bodyguards. / ek de tês Makedonias tôn philôn tou basileôs huioi pentêkonta pros tên sômatophulakian hupo tôn paterôn apestalmenoi
The date of the Illyrian battle is not agreed upon. Even were it “something like eight years before Philip’s assassination” Pausanias, had he been primis pubertatis annis at the time, can only have been in his very early twenties at the assassination. Amusingly, you would number him amongst the seven most influential nobles in Philip’s kingdom.Taphoi wrote: But there is no need for Pausanias to have been a Somatophylax at the time of the original incident – only at the time of the assassination, which is Diodorus’s focus. Justin appears to be correct in suggesting that the original incident had occurred something like eight years before Philip’s assassination.
I have, in fact, truncated nothing. I am using theThomas Stanley translation. The Greek, from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, is:Taphoi wrote:That is because you have truncated the quote, which continues, “Archedamus was unable to resist thoughts of gain…” The Loeb editor has commented, “Perhaps Archedamus had been tempted to plunder the enemy camp before the danger of a counterattack was past.”
Given the difficulties of translation the note on this translation is: Stanley leaves untranslated the very difficult passage that ends the chapter. It can be made to read something like "Archedamus thought he had, by his flattery and subservience, gained enough sway over Philip that he did not have to fear punishment. I would add that, given the use of "basilea", you - or your translator - are implying Archedamus is plundering from Philip? Heckel views this in terms of punishment: being made to stand in one's armour as the Greeks were wont to impose. Your view is, therefore, neither the only one applicable nor necessarily the correct one on balance.ἤλπισε γὰρ διὰ τῆς κολακείας καὶ ὑποδρομῆς χειρώσασθαι τὸν βασιλέα, ἅτε ἀνὴρ ἥττωντοῦ κερδαίνειν ὤν / êlpise gar dia tês kolakeias kai hupodromês cheirôsasthai ton basilea, hate anêr hêttôn tou kerdainein ôn
Most amusing that you argue from context here. This is something you resolutely refused to countenance on the "Latest on Alexander's Death" thread. Something resembling Damascus in view?
Again, other Persians of note are named and Artabazus named as having a command under Alexander. Alexander’s favourite is nowhere so named. The onus is to prove that he so commanded or fought rather than the other way around.Taphoi wrote:I note that the arguments above against Marcus are arguments from silence.