pothos.org

( Split off from the Paides Basilikoi thread as a digression)

I am indeed preparing a detailed response, and trying to be thorough about it - and have fallen behind once more, with another lengthy post from Paralus !

For now, I'll content myself with some more 'tidying up' and 'trivia' points:

Xenophon wrote:

Arrian’s description at VII.23 refers only to Persians, armed with either bows or ‘light javelins’ with throwing thongs.[whence come Cossaeans and Tapurians?]

I have answered my own question, in that these are part of, the 20,000 "Persian" troops brought by Peucestas to be enrolled into Alexander's new-fangled mixed phalanx - being hill-men, they are regarded as good human material. Interestingly, at this time there are further re-inforcements from Caria, Lydia, and cavalry too.

Neoptolemos:

Ageilaos wrote:

Neoptolemos seems to have been archihypaspist after Nikanor, but to have dropped out due to Ptolemy’s bias, at Sittacene Alexander seems to be creating more levels of command and thus giving him the possibility of rewarding more men; it would be strange if he decided to scrap one of the premier honours.

Not strange at all. I noted earlier that after the death of Nicanor, Alexander appears only to have chiliarchy commanders of the (probably 4) units of Hypaspists, who invariably formed part of the 'Right Wing' under Alexander's command which was in keeping with the command structure of the 'Left Wing'. A further reason is that following the "Philotas plot", Alexander likely resolved not to concentrate ALL his elite Macedonian infantry under one commander for political reasons, just as he split the 'Hetairoi' command (ArrianIII.27).[The assumption here being that the line infantry phalanx may well have become 'adulterated' with non-Macedonians by this time, but that the Hypaspists remained 'relatively' pure]

Paralus wrote:

Indeed it would. I don't know that we can blame his complete and utter absence on Ptolemy's bias though - he seems never to come up anywhere. Most odd.

.... and...

It is hard to think of a reason, other than Ptolemaic peevishness, for Neoptolemos’ rank not being noticed, one could reject Plutarch’s testimony, but since it may go back to Hieronymos or another contemporary it seems better to accept it and see him as Nikanor’s successor.

Not quite, according to Plutarch..........as I posted back on page 4, Oct 26 :-

Paralus wrote:

It is interesting to note that the position of commander of the hypaspists seems, for all intents and purposes, to melt away after Nicanor's death. Plutarch claims Neoptolemus as "archyhypaspist" yet I can find no mention of him commanding hypaspists. What we do hear of are chiliarchs and commanders of the agema / royal hypaspists. If Justin is correct, Cassander is handed Seleukos' command in Babylon as Seleukos is given the first chiliarchy and command of the cavalry.

As Agesilaos noted, the term 'archihypaspist', in use in Hellenistic times, occurs only in Plutarch and thus may be an anachronism. Plutarch "Eumenes"[ I] describes Neoptolemus thus:

....Therefore when Neoptolemus, the commander of the Shield-bearers/Hypaspists, after Alexander's death, said that he had followed the king with shield/aspis and spear/longche, but Eumenes with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed him to scorn;

while slightly ambiguous, I took this to mean that he was 'archihypaspist' after Alexander's death rather than that his 'bon mot' was spoken after Alexander's death ( which is obvious from the context and not need saying). The Greek, without a comma inserted by a modern translator would presumably also be ambiguous.[comment on the Greek, anyone ?]
Given the lack of an overall commander after Nicanor, it would seem logical for one to be appointed after Alexander's death.....

Xenophon wrote:

As Agesilaos noted, the term 'archihypaspist', in use in Hellenistic times, occurs only in Plutarch and thus may be an anachronism. Plutarch "Eumenes"[ I] describes Neoptolemus thus:

....Therefore when Neoptolemus, the commander of the Shield-bearers/Hypaspists, after Alexander's death, said that he had followed the king with shield/aspis and spear/longche, but Eumenes with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed him to scorn;

while slightly ambiguous, I took this to mean that he was 'archihypaspist' after Alexander's death rather than that his 'bon mot' was spoken after Alexander's death ( which is obvious from the context and not need saying). The Greek, without a comma inserted by a modern translator would presumably also be ambiguous.[comment on the Greek, anyone ?]
Given the lack of an overall commander after Nicanor, it would seem logical for one to be appointed after Alexander's death.....

Obvious that he was archihypaspist after Alexander's death or that he said this after Alexander's death?

It is his rank under Alexander that Neoptolemus uses to buttress his scornful view of Eumenes. Saying it as a commander appointed by Perdiccas after Alexander's death does not carry the import (see the many other attestations of officers appointed by Alexander using same). Thus he was not appointed after Alexander died and is saying that "as archihypaspist under Alexander I followed the king...."

More on a trivial digression:
Paralus wrote:

It is his rank under Alexander that Neoptolemus uses to buttress his scornful view of Eumenes. Saying it as a commander appointed by Perdiccas after Alexander's death does not carry the import (see the many other attestations of officers appointed by Alexander using same). Thus he was not appointed after Alexander died and is saying that "as archihypaspist under Alexander I followed the king...."

That is part of the ambiguity I was referring to. He is saying that under Alexander, he was a warrior, while Eumenes was a mere pen-pusher. Doubtless he served in the Hypaspists, working his way through a number of ranks before finally ending up as archihypaspist, probably after Alexander's death. That is consistent with, and would explain why, he is not referred to as such in the period between Nicanor's death and Alexander's death, and why we only hear of individual chiliarchy commanders.[ Note that it is apparently Neoptolemus who is laughed to scorn]

Xenophon wrote:More on a trivial digression:
Paralus wrote:

It is his rank under Alexander that Neoptolemus uses to buttress his scornful view of Eumenes. Saying it as a commander appointed by Perdiccas after Alexander's death does not carry the import (see the many other attestations of officers appointed by Alexander using same). Thus he was not appointed after Alexander died and is saying that "as archihypaspist under Alexander I followed the king...."

That is part of the ambiguity I was referring to. He is saying that under Alexander, he was a warrior, while Eumenes was a mere pen-pusher. Doubtless he served in the Hypaspists, working his way through a number of ranks before finally ending up as archihypaspist, probably after Alexander's death. That is consistent with, and would explain why, he is not referred to as such in the period between Nicanor's death and Alexander's death, and why we only hear of individual chiliarchy commanders.[ Note that it is apparently Neoptolemus who is laughed to scorn]

No, I'm afraid that is wrong. As I've said, Neoptolemos' criticism of Eumenes is predicated upon his rank attained under Alexander; not after. Thus the Macedonians dismiss it by showing just how preferred Eumenes was under the same king. If any more evidence is needed, perhaps you can explain his immediately attested 'command' after Alexander's death: strategos of Armenia? There are those who still argue he was made satrap of the area (I disagree). Regardless, this is the first place he is attested after Alexander's death. Perhaps the hypaspists followed him??

Not only generic, but specifically to refer to a ‘unit’ consisting of one sixth ( originally) of the 12,000 strong sarissa phalanx – the term occurs some 72 times in Arrian, the vast majority references to sarissa phalanx units and occasionally in other contexts such as ‘units’ of mounted javelinmen, archers etc thus in a generic sense also.

The word was used before and after Arrian and his sources, it is in Herodotos and Thucydides, and Dio Cassius, all in the generic sense in fact never in the alleged specific sense outside Arrian; all of which means there really is only the generic sense 'unit'. As previously stated even Arrian uses a variant ie 'phalanx' for the individual component territorial sarissophoroi units.

Totally have to agree with Paralus that Plutarch is making Neoptolemos refer to his position under Alexander, and the context is,surely the pre-battle speeches in th battle that saw Krateros and Neoptolemos both slain; it is Eumenes' Macedonians that laugh him out of court, he had already betrayed their leader and been beaten by the troops he was attempting to subborn; it has to be said, though, that our sources are sufficiently pro-Eumenes to have invented the incident, but the details of rank should be accurate. Whatever, his rank after Babylon, Neoptolemos clearly left for his satrapy whence he refused to help Eumenes and did not take the Hypaspists with him, he would have more Macedonian infantry than Perdikkas if he had!

A webinar beckons, I shall enterthe lists again later.

agesilaos wrote:and the context is,surely the pre-battle speeches in th battle that saw Krateros and Neoptolemos both slain; it is Eumenes' Macedonians that laugh him out of court, he had already betrayed their leader and been beaten by the troops he was attempting to subborn; it has to be said, though, that our sources are sufficiently pro-Eumenes to have invented the incident, but the details of rank should be accurate.

I think too much can be made of a "pro-Eumenes" bent to the souces. There is a great deal of pro-Ptolemy material present in the Diodoran tradition almost religiously ascribed directly to Hieronymus. There is almost, but not quite, as much anti-Antigonos material. That, though, is another discussion.

I don't subscribe to the Neoptolemos as satrap of Armenia line. The only source to say so is Dexxipus (Arr.Succ. 1b.6) and even then only after doctoring to read such. No other source on the Babylonian Settlement mentions him as satrap of anywhere. It is possible that Diodorus and Arrian (Photius) leave leave him out but that is most unlikely: both present similar lists and Diodorus seems to be quite painstaking here even geographically describing the satrapies so as to make matters so much the clearer. It is more likely, as Anson suggests (Eumenes of Cardia, 79), that Neoptolemos left Babylon with the royal army and was detached as strategos or hegemon of a force to deal with the remnants of the army Ariarathes had commanded all who fled to the area (Diod. 31.19.5).

In any case, Neoptolemos - after Alexander's death - is only ever described as leading a detachment in Armenia and he plainly does not follow the royal army and, so, the hypaspists. Plutarch's statement only means that Neoptolemos was archihypaspist under Alexander and that soon after he relinquished such for an independent command in Armenia. A command he stuffed up it seems.

Xenophon wrote:Doubtless he served in the Hypaspists, working his way through a number of ranks before finally ending up as archihypaspist, probably after Alexander's death.

It is most unlikely that Neoptolemus, a scion of the Molossian royal house, was ever a junior working his way up through the hypaspists. That he was a member of the agema is near certain (see Gaza). The commander of the hypaspists ("archihypaspist") were nobles of high standing and will have been a direct appointment of the king. I can't see him being the subject of a vote for a pentikosiarchy or a chiliarchy. Ditto Nikanor and Seleucus.

Re : Neoptolemus
Paralus wrote:

No, I'm afraid that is wrong. As I've said, Neoptolemos' criticism of Eumenes is predicated upon his rank attained under Alexander; not after. Thus the Macedonians dismiss it by showing just how preferred Eumenes was under the same king. If any more evidence is needed, perhaps you can explain his immediately attested 'command' after Alexander's death: strategos of Armenia? There are those who still argue he was made satrap of the area (I disagree). Regardless, this is the first place he is attested after Alexander's death. Perhaps the hypaspists followed him??

There is a difference between Neoptolemus criticising Eumenes on the basis of rank, and proclaiming his status as a military man....he does not say "I was commander of the King's Bodyguard, while Eumenes is a mere civilian secretary"....and one wonders why not, if he really was archihypaspist under Alexander. Instead, he merely contrasts his role as soldier to Eumenes of civilian pen-pusher. The implication is surely that he was NOT archihypaspist under Alexander. I see that you follow Heckel's "Marshals" , which you have ( I do not) in considering that Neoptolemos was NOT Satrap of Armenia, but rather possibly 'strategos/General' - there is no certainty about this either.

There is no reason Neoptolemus could not have been archihypaspist for up to two years or so, or even a lesser period, between Alexander's death in June 323, and some time before the outbreak of hostilities, before he went to Armenia, in whatever capacity he was sent.

Agesilaos wrote:

The word was used before and after Arrian and his sources, it is in Herodotos and Thucydides, and Dio Cassius, all in the generic sense in fact never in the alleged specific sense outside Arrian; all of which means there really is only the generic sense 'unit'. As previously stated even Arrian uses a variant ie 'phalanx' for the individual component territorial sarissophoroi units.

In other sources it is usually used in the specific ( or generic if you like ) sense of "largest individual infantry unit"....

Totally have to agree with Paralus that Plutarch is making Neoptolemos refer to his position under Alexander, and the context is,surely the pre-battle speeches in th battle that saw Krateros and Neoptolemos both slain; it is Eumenes' Macedonians that laugh him out of court, he had already betrayed their leader and been beaten by the troops he was attempting to subborn; it has to be said, though, that our sources are sufficiently pro-Eumenes to have invented the incident, but the details of rank should be accurate. Whatever, his rank after Babylon, Neoptolemos clearly left for his satrapy whence he refused to help Eumenes and did not take the Hypaspists with him, he would have more Macedonian infantry than Perdikkas if he had!

Most unlikely he was 'Satrap' ( see above and Paralus latest post), perhaps not even 'strategos' but something else ( hegemon ? ). Quite what troops he had in Armenia we simply don't know - he may have had a detachment of hypaspists as 'phylakes', for example...

Paralus wrote:

It is most unlikely that Neoptolemus, a scion of the Molossian royal house, was ever a junior working his way up through the hypaspists. That he was a member of the agema is near certain (see Gaza). The commander of the hypaspists ("archihypaspist") were nobles of high standing and will have been a direct appointment of the king. I can't see him being the subject of a vote for a pentikosiarchy or a chiliarchy. Ditto Nikanor and Seleucus.

I'd agree that he was almost certainly an officer in the Agema previously, given his birthright.( Perhaps I should have been pedantic and said 'Agema' specifically, rather than a generic 'Hypaspists' )

I doubt whether in reality ANY appointment of rank within the Agema were the subject of a vote (!)....after all they were Alexander's personal bodyguard...

Xenophon wrote:There is a difference between Neoptolemus criticising Eumenes on the basis of rank, and proclaiming his status as a military man....he does not say "I was commander of the King's Bodyguard, while Eumenes is a mere civilian secretary"....and one wonders why not, if he really was archihypaspist under Alexander. Instead, he merely contrasts his role as soldier to Eumenes of civilian pen-pusher. The implication is surely that he was NOT archihypaspist under Alexander.

We know only what Plutarch chose to write. It goes without saying that Neoptolemos well knew what his rank was and so did the Macedonians that were the recipients of his ‘spray’. There is no need whatsoever for him to have said so just as Kleitos does not have to say “as commander of the royal ile…”. Just as the Macedonians well knew of the preferment of Eumenes – gained under Alexander – that is contrasted with Neoptolemos. It is Plutarch who, for the benefit of his readers four centuries later, supplies the status of Neoptolemos.

Xenophon wrote: I see that you follow Heckel's "Marshals" , which you have ( I do not) in considering that Neoptolemos was NOT Satrap of Armenia, but rather possibly 'strategos/General' - there is no certainty about this either.

Actually I follow Anson and Bosworth in this regard. Whilst there might be “no certainty about this either” (and I reject the implication of uncertainty about Neoptolemos' position), what certainty there is strongly favours the fact that he was not a satrap. As related in the previous post, there is only the one doctored reference in Dexippus. All the other sources dealing with the Babylonian Settlement are in agreement: he was not given a province at Babylon and he is only ever termed ‘hegemon’.

Xenophon wrote:There is no reason Neoptolemus could not have been archihypaspist for up to two years or so, or even a lesser period, between Alexander's death in June 323, and some time before the outbreak of hostilities, before he went to Armenia, in whatever capacity he was sent. […]Most unlikely he was 'Satrap' ( see above and Paralus latest post), perhaps not even 'strategos' but something else ( hegemon ? ). Quite what troops he had in Armenia we simply don't know - he may have had a detachment of hypaspists as 'phylakes', for example...

Hegemon it is (19.29.2).

Your position would see Neoptolemos appointed as hyapspist commander by Perdiccas in Babylon and, in late Summer 322, detached from the royal army for service in Armenia. He is not with the royal army and he cannot be leading the hypaspists who will have gone with it. He is still in Armenia the following year when Eumenes arrives to restore some order to the place and the Macedonians under Neoptolemos’ command. He is not at court when hostilities break out as Perdiccas sends a letter to him to serve Eumenes in defence of the Hellespont and so is still in Armenia (Plut. Eum. 5.2

It’s now time to deal with another thread related to this…

agesilaos wrote: and the context is,surely the pre-battle speeches in th battle that saw Krateros and Neoptolemos both slain; it is Eumenes' Macedonians that laugh him out of court, he had already betrayed their leader and been beaten by the troops he was attempting to subborn;

I don’t think that’s likely. Eumenes took great care to keep his Macedonians in the dark about who they were facing here. The logical thing would have been for Neoptolemos to have told Eumenes’ Macedonians they were up against Krateros. After all, he made a great song and dance to the latter about how the Macedonians would come over to him.

Hence to Neoptolemos’ Macedonians in Armenia. Plutarch describes them as “conceited and bold”. It is more likely in this scenario that Neoptolemos’ barb is delivered as it is Eumenes who is bringing them to order and raising their morale for more action. If, on Xenophon’s suggestion, Neoptolemos has hypaspists with him, he does not need to tell them who he is.

But that is by the by. It is most unlikely that Perdiccas would send the hypaspists – or a detachment – away from the campaigning royal army for anything but short sorties. Neoptolemos’ detachment to Armenia is nothing of that nature. It is even less likely that he would detach their archihypaspist in one direction and head off in the opposite. The natural conclusion is that Neoptolemos no longer holds this command having been ‘promoted’ to either hegemon or strategos of Armenia. And this before we raise the conundrum of the Argyraspides and their commander Antigenes. Perhaps it is now he becomes such? Yet again, something for another thread.

Again, Neoptolemos is commander of the hypaspists under Alexander. It is Plutarch who adds, for his reader’s benefit, the fact that Neoptolemos was archihypaspist and, that in that position, he followed Alexander with spear and shield. The only attested change in his position is his assignment to Armenia and, as hegemon, to subordinate himself to Eumenes. The implication is certainly that he was hypaspist commander under Alexander and the direct comparison is made between this rank and preferment under Alexander and Eumenes’ preferment.

You put me in mind of that adage of Francis Bacon you are so fond of...

I am just going to reply to a few points about Neoptolemos before the thread is split (I hope).

First the context of that remark about Eumenes; here is Photios' abridgement of Arrian's 'Matters after Alexander' (Ta Meta Alexandron)

Neoptolemus being suspected by Eumenes, war broke out between them, in which Eumenes was victorious. Neoptolemus fled with a few men to Antipater and Craterus, and succeeded in persuading the latter to join him; so both made war against Eumenes. Eumenes did his best to prevent his own men from knowing that Craterus was fighting against him, being afraid that, influenced by his great reputation, they might either desert to him, or, if they remained faithful to him, might lose heart. Successful in scheming, he was also successful in battle. Neoptolemus fell by the hand of Eumenes "the secretary" himself, after having proved himself a brave soldier and commander. Craterus, who fought boldly against all who opposed him and showed himself openly in order to be known, was slain by some Paphlagonians before he was recognized, although he had thrown off his hat

Plutarch divorces the remark from its context to make an introductory piece, but this suggests that it may be associated with that battle. But even without this the Macedonians laugh Neoptolemos 'to scorn', they are unlikely to be those Macedonians who are his companions in 'pride and affrontary', they would surely have applauded his reasons to resist the curb upon their own licence.

You are right that it would have probably been more effective to 'big up' Krateros' presence, but Neoptolemos' role is that of pantomime villain not effective general; what he actually said, if anything and even the real feelings of the troops with Eumenes for Krateros need not intrude on the narrative the author chooses to impose upon events. Eumenes is the wise and effective general, fooling his soldiers by making Krateros out to be Pigres and ensuring that the enemy are opposed by his loyal foreign cavalry not his dubious Macedonians. Neoptolemos supplies the foil to this picture, he is a traitor who cannot sway the enemy troops (that he is laughed out of court demonstrates that the troops are pro Eumenes and thus likely his troops), in fact he fails to deploy his strongest point; that Krateros is on his side: and instead makes himself a laughing stock by assuming 'military airs', that the audience treat his point with scorn implies to me that Eumenes has had a military success himself, the most obvious is his recent victory over the very man trying to belittle him as a pen-pusher.

I confess I had not re-read the appointment lists and mistakenly included Neoptolemos in the group whom Perdikkas ordered to assist Eumenes in taking his satrapy. Dexippos does assign him Carmania according to Photios whereas Diodoros gives the name as Tlepolemos and, whilst names are the words most suceptable to corruption in transmission, the other errors in Dexippos push the balance firmly in Diodoros' direction; it would also mean that Perdikkas took him from his satrapy to conquer another without him ever being styled a satrap, which is unlikely.

Now as to Xenophon's idea that the post of archihypaspist was scrapped post Philotas in the same way that the command of the Companions was split, I would observe that what Alexander was doing was not weakening the military clout of a potential rival but watering down the opportunity for political influence over the elite, the only politically important group. The hypaspists ('hypaspistai basilikoi' apart as I will argue) were still from the same peasant stock as the phalanx, they did not amount to a political threat and, just like the phalanx, did not require any special treatment. Just as the division of the Companion's command was mentioned had the fall of Philotas occasioned the abolition of the archihypaspistate then it would likely be mentioned, in any case Nikanor had predeceased Philotas; were I Badian, I might emit a loud 'Eureka!' and point to the prescience of a king leaving this post vacant because he already knows that Philotas is doomed and he needs to leave the hypaspists leaderless; but not having the fungal knowledge to spot a magic mushroom I prefer to think that the post was filled, by Neoptolemos, when Nikanor died and that he continued in that post until he was assigned his Armenian command.

Paralus wrote:

You put me in mind of that adage of Francis Bacon you are so fond of...

On the contrary, I have no set viewpoint on the matter. I speak in terms of 'possibilities', 'probabilities' and 'ambiguities' and put forward what is consistent with the evidence. It is you who are 'certain' that Neoptolemos was Nicanor's successor as 'archihypaspist'. (Nicanor is never referred to as such, so far as I am aware.) This 'certainty' is despite there being no evidence for your assertion, and what there is tends to be against the proposition. It is you therefore who fits Bacon's adage rather than me.

According to the LSJ, the only time this term occurs in any of our sources of the period is this usage by Plutarch, which as previously mentioned might well mean the usage is anachronistic. If it was Alexander who appointed Neoptolemos as successor to Nicanor, then he must have also created this new title too.

Let us remind ourselves of the slender evidence:
1. After the death of Nicanor, there is no mention in our major sources of anyone being appointed in his place, or of there being an overall commander of the Hypaspists, only individual chiliarchies being referred to.

[Digression: In Alexander's day the term 'chiliarchon' seems to have been used to describe the very influential person who commanded the King's Bodyguard. He first gave it to Hephaistion, described at Arrian VII.14.10 as "chiliarchon of the Companion cavalry." Perdiccas apparently succeeded to this title following Hephaistion's death.
For completeness, Arrian uses 'chiliarchos' asa commander of a unit twice, at IV.30.10 where Antiochus is "chiliarchos twn uspaspiton"; and at I.22.7 at the siege of Halicarnassus, where Adaios, a 'chiliarchos,' is killed, this latter reference generally considered to be an anachronism, but possibly not if the Hypaspists were already organised into thousand strong units, though Curtius V.2.3 tells us 'chiliarchies' were only created in the re-organisation following Amyntas' re-inforcements at Sittakene, after Gaugemala, there previously having been 'lochoi' of 500. Diodorus only uses the term post-Alexander.]

2.Plutarch tells us that Neoptolemus was 'archihypaspist' after the death of Alexander.

3. At some point after, in the two years or so following Alexander's death, Neoptolemos is 'promoted' and given the province of Armenia where he rules as 'Hegemon', though apparently not as an official 'Satrap,' with the aid of Macedonian troops ( and probably others). We know that in other similar circumstances Macedonian governors had Macedonian bodyguards/somatophylakes ( e.g. Philip at Arrian VI.27) who must surely be drawn from the Hypaspists whose function this was, so I don't agree the rather forced reasoning that Perdiccas wouldn't have allowed Neoptolemus a detachment.

Paralus wrote:

It is Plutarch who, for the benefit of his readers four centuries later, supplies the status of Neoptolemos.

Agreed, but why say "after Alexander's death" if in fact he was commander of the Hypaspists during Alexander's lifetime?

Again, Neoptolemos is commander of the hypaspists under Alexander. It is Plutarch who adds, for his reader’s benefit, the fact that Neoptolemos was archihypaspist and, that in that position, he followed Alexander with spear and shield. The only attested change in his position is his assignment to Armenia and, as hegemon, to subordinate himself to Eumenes. The implication is certainly that he was hypaspist commander under Alexander and the direct comparison is made between this rank and preferment under Alexander and Eumenes’ preferment......... Just as the Macedonians well knew of the preferment of Eumenes – gained under Alexander – that is contrasted with Neoptolemos.

This is untrue. You are making connections that just aren't there in the evidence. Plutarch does not say that in the position of archihypaspist, he followed Alexander with spear/longche and aspis/shield. He tells his audience that Neoptolemus was 'archihypasist' "after the death of Alexander". Then he quotes Neoptolemus' bon mot about serving Alexander with spear and shield, while Eumenes served with pen and paper. There is no connection whatever between the two statements - the first is an interpolation from Plutarch to explain who he was, the second the supposed bon mot of Neoptolemus himself - that is an unsupported conclusion that you have leapt to. Where is the "direct comparison" between the rank of N. and the rank of E., under Alexander or at all ? Ranks are simply not referred to in N.'s statement, as given by Plutarch. Neoptolemus likely held several ranks, probably in the Agema, but possibly originally the 'ordinary' Hypaspists, in his career under Alexander, but not, according to Plutarch, that of Commander of the Hypaspists until "after the death of Alexander." There is really only the inference that N. was a military man whilst E. was a mere civilian, (hence denigrating a non-soldier in the company of other soldiers) and nothing more should be inferred than that. It is a huge leap to go from this to the 'certainty' that N. was appointed as successor to Nicanor, for nothing in our sources states, or even implies this.

In addition, Plutarch's statement is consistent with the lack of any mention in our main sources of an overall Commander of Hypaspists following Nicanor's death, which is at odds with your 'certainty' that Alexander appointed him following Nicanor's demise. On balance of probability therefore, your certain view is likely to be incorrect.

I would be cautious about reading too much into Agesilaos' association Photios 'Eumenes the secretary' with Plutarch's remarks, after all, this is just a common way of identifying which Eumenes is meant, and there would be no 'quotation marks' in the Greek. Even so the link is just possible, and I would tend to agree most of the next two paragraphs.

Agesilaos wrote:

Now as to Xenophon's idea that the post of archihypaspist was scrapped post Philotas in the same way that the command of the Companions was split, I would observe that what Alexander was doing was not weakening the military clout of a potential rival but watering down the opportunity for political influence over the elite, the only politically important group. The hypaspists ('hypaspistai basilikoi' apart as I will argue) were still from the same peasant stock as the phalanx, they did not amount to a political threat and, just like the phalanx, did not require any special treatment. Just as the division of the Companion's command was mentioned had the fall of Philotas occasioned the abolition of the archihypaspistate then it would likely be mentioned, in any case Nikanor had predeceased Philotas; were I Badian, I might emit a loud 'Eureka!' and point to the prescience of a king leaving this post vacant because he already knows that Philotas is doomed and he needs to leave the hypaspists leaderless; but not having the fungal knowledge to spot a magic mushroom I prefer to think that the post was filled, by Neoptolemos, when Nikanor died and that he continued in that post until he was assigned his Armenian command.

Firstly, at the risk of being pedantic, there does not seem to have been a title of 'archihypaspist' in Alexander's time - there is apparently only the single usage of this term by Plutarch [according to the LSJ] referring to a time after the death of Alexander.
Secondly, the fact that Nicanor's death precedes the Philotas 'plot' does not negate the idea that Alexander was cautious about allowing too much power to his subordinates. The fact is that no such successor is reported, and we cannot read Alexander's mind to determine just why. One possibility is that Parmenion might well have expected one of his other relatives or connection to be appointed, and Alexander was loath to do that, and avoided making an appointment to avoid a falling out. Or there may have been some other reason, but at all events hesitation became determination when a few months later the Philotas affair occurred.
Thirdly, I'd agree that it was the officers/nobility who counted, but that doesn't change anything. If all the Hypaspist officers served a single commander ( or all the Hetairoi cavalry), especially when both arms had been enlarged, they would have been expected to obey and be loyal to that commander, increasing the risks to Alexander. After all, the phrase "divide et impera/divide and rule" is attributed to Alexander's father Philip !

edited to correct error concerning Parmenion's sons.

Oh dear. Take the teenagers to see Thor and the thread marches on. Anyway, the saved reply from earlier...

agesilaos wrote:You are right that it would have probably been more effective to 'big up' Krateros' presence, but Neoptolemos' role is that of pantomime villain not effective general; what he actually said, if anything and even the real feelings of the troops with Eumenes for Krateros need not intrude on the narrative the author chooses to impose upon events. Eumenes is the wise and effective general, fooling his soldiers by making Krateros out to be Pigres and ensuring that the enemy are opposed by his loyal foreign cavalry not his dubious Macedonians. Neoptolemos supplies the foil to this picture, he is a traitor who cannot sway the enemy troops (that he is laughed out of court demonstrates that the troops are pro Eumenes and thus likely his troops), in fact he fails to deploy his strongest point; that Krateros is on his side: and instead makes himself a laughing stock by assuming 'military airs', that the audience treat his point with scorn implies to me that Eumenes has had a military success himself, the most obvious is his recent victory over the very man trying to belittle him as a pen-pusher.

Firstly, I acknowledge that ancient authors used literary topoi and neat stories illustrating character which explained outcomes. Plutarch is the prince of this sort of writing. Ancient authors also interested themselves in commanders outgeneralling the other. Diodorus addiction this and to peripeteia is well known. Arrian does not so often succumb to such (though the “frightened coward” picture painted of Darius is a concern but more likely down to his sources highlighting the arête of the Great).

So to the ‘pantomine’ of Neoptolemos and Eumenes. This appears in both Plutarch and Arrian. Diodorus, too interested in Thibron’s turns of fate, edits it out. That it was in his source is not to be doubted though (cf. 18.29.4: “Neoptolemus, who was jealous of Eumenes…”) and it certainly goes back to a common source. ‘Pantomine’ or not, I think we can conclude the animosity was quite real; a judgement we may echo for the popularity of Krateros.

Now to the summarised sources. It is in the nature of the beast that epitomising leaves out rather than adds. Depending on the severity of the summary, what is left out can be quite substantial. Photius' summary of Arrian is exceptionally severe. Photius’ summary of Arrian, for example, does not, like the other sources on the Babylonian Settlement, include the funerary arrangements for the dead king. We know of these through the other sources and Photius eventually refers to this in his summary of the sixth book, confirming the fact that Arrhidaeus was in charge of these arrangements (1.25). Given the chronic contraction, there is no way of knowing that it wasn’t referred to earlier as with the other sources and the probability is that it was (and possibly the cancelling of the hypomnemata). So with the attestation of “the secretary himself”. All this means is that, at some earlier point, Arrian had related the story. That it immediately preceded this is possible. Just as possible is that it was some time earlier. There is no way of knowing.

Again, the great weakness is the fact that Neoptolemos has told Krateros that Eumenes’ Macedonians would desert him once they realised that Krateros commanded the forces arrayed against them. His popularity is elsewhere attested and can hardly be put down to a contribution to this pantomime. It beggars belief that were Neoptolemus in contact with the Macedonians he did not mention this at all. This is to paint him as an absolute dolt and totally in contradiction to his stated premise for urging Krateros on to combat. Far from exalting Eumenes’ competence, this sees him outwit Krateros and Neoptolemos the latter of whom is such imbecile as to forget his own rationale for urging combat. I would submit that the ancient audience would find this just as hard to swallow as do I. The dithering, indecisive Athenian General Nikias before Syracuse would look like Alexander in comparison.

Which is not to say your view is not possible; I just find it not the most probable.

Xenophon wrote:Paralus wrote:

You put me in mind of that adage of Francis Bacon you are so fond of...

On the contrary, I have no set viewpoint on the matter. I speak in terms of 'possibilities', 'probabilities' and 'ambiguities' and put forward what is consistent with the evidence.

I doubt that. Your repeated statement of your view contradicts that entirely:

Xenophon wrote:2.Plutarch tells us that Neoptolemus was 'archihypaspist' after the death of Alexander.

He tells his audience that Neoptolemus was 'archihypasist' "after the death of Alexander".

It maters not that you ascribe this view to Plutarch because it is your view of what he has written and your continued defence of this view indicates your certainty in the matter.You continue to highlight a single phrase in a near religious fashion (it is Sunday after all) - after Alexander's death - and trumpet this as absolute proof that Neoptolemos' appointment occurred after Alexander's death. Far better methinks to look at the context of the sentence:

After Philip's death Eumenes was thought to be inferior to none of Alexander's followers in sagacity and fidelity, and though he had only the title of chief secretary, he was held in as much honour as the king's principal friends and intimates, so that on the Indian expedition he was actually sent out as general with a force under his own orders, and received the command in the cavalry which Perdiccas had held, when Perdiccas, after Hephaestion's death, was advanced to that officer's position. Therefore when Neoptolemus, the commander of the Shield-bearers, after Alexander's death, said that he had followed the king with shield and spear, but Eumenes with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed him to scorn; they knew that, besides his other honours, Eumenes had been deemed worthy by the king of relationship in marriage.

As can readily be seen, the single sentence is part of a much wider anecdotal illumination of Eumenes. Before the sentence in question we have a summary of Eumenes' preferment under the dead king including his raising to the command of Perdiccas' hipparchy. Following the sentence in question Plutarch relates that the Macedonians laughed at him because they also knew that the dead king had raised him to relationship by marriage. All of this information illustrating Eumenes' eminence is based on his rank under Alexander. Now if, for example, the phrase were excised it would read:

Therefore when Neoptolemus, the commander of the Shield-bearers, said that he had followed the king with shield and spear, but Eumenes with pen and paper, the Macedonians laughed him to scorn; they knew that, besides his other honours, Eumenes had been deemed worthy by the king of relationship in marriage.

That statement could really only mean that Neoptolemos uttered his barb whilst Alexander was alive ("therefore" - that is, because of the preceding). The phrase is included so as to locate the anecdote to the period after Alexander's death, not the appointment of Neoptolemos to command of the hypaspists. As I've said, Plutarch includes this latter to illustrate the standing (since "rank" seems to be distorting matters) of Neoptolemos for his readers just as Eumenes' has been so fulsomely been discussed.

Xenophon wrote:I would be cautious about reading too much into Agesilaos' association Photios 'Eumenes the secretary' with Plutarch's remarks, after all, this is just a common way of identifying which Eumenes is meant, and there would be no 'quotation marks' in the Greek. Even so the link is just possible, and I would tend to agree most of the next two paragraphs.

I don't find that at all convincing. It clearly refers to the same story which, as I remarked earlier, comes from a common source - as does the story of single combat resulting in Neoptolemos' death at Euemenes' hands with which it is associated. Arrian - like Diodorus and Plutarch - will have related the battle and the Eumenes meant will have been as plain as the nose on one's face. Also,I do not recall Eumenes being called "the secretary" in such fashion anywhere else.

I would also be wary of seeing Alexander as the creator of the title of 'archihypaspist'. It is more likely that Plutarch uses it anachronistically.

I presume by ‘anachronistic’ you mean that Neoptolemos was not archihypaspist at the time Plutarch refers to him as such; since there is just this one usage it cannot be a later Hellenistic intrusion, there ceased to be Hypaspists, as such, those in the Antigonid kingdom are high level officials rather than guardsmen. There is only a short span when there could have been an archihypaspist, from Philip’s creation of the force to their mutation into the ‘Argyraspids’ after Alexander’s death.

Nikanor is never styled archihypaspist but Arrian uses a periphrasis to describe his rank

book 1, chapter 14:ii ... ἐχόμενοι δὲ τούτων ἐτάχθησαν οἱ ὑπασπισταὶ τῶν ἑταίρων, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Νικάνωρ ὁ Παρμενίωνος:
book 2, chapter 8: iii... πρὸς τῷ ὄρει τῶν πεζῶν τό τε ἄγημα καὶ τοὺς ὑπασπιστάς, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Νικάνωρ ὁ Παρμενίωνος,
book 3, chapter 11:ix ... πρῶτον τὸ ἄγημα ἐτέτακτο τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ οἱ ἄλλοι ὑπασπισταί: ἡγεῖτο δὲ αὐτῶν Νικάνωρ ὁ Παρμενίωνος:
book 3, chapter 25:iv .... Νικάνωρ δὲ ὁ Παρμενίωνος ὁ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ἄρχων τετελευτήκει ἤδη νόσῳ

Since these phrases describe the role of Archihypaspist it would not be unreasonable to suppose that such was Nikanor’s actual rank.

Plutarch can be read two ways

[3] διὸ καὶ Νεοπτολέμου τοῦ ἀρχιυπασπιστοῦ μετὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου τελευτὴν λέγοντος ὡς αὐτὸς μὲν ἀσπίδα καὶ λόγχην, Εὐμενὴς δὲ γραφεῖον ἔχων καὶ πινακίδιον ἠκολούθει, κατεγέλων οἱ Μακεδόνες, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καλῶν τὸν Εὐμενῆ καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν γάμον οἰκειότητος ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως εἰδότες ἀξιωθέντα. Βαρσίνην γὰρ τὴν Ἀρταβάζου πρώτην ἐν Ἀσίᾳ γνοὺς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, ἐξ ἧς υἱὸν ἔσχεν Ἡρακλέα, τῶν ταύτης ἀδελφῶν Πτολεμαίῳ μὲν Ἀπάμαν, Εὐμενεῖ δὲ Βαρσίνην ἐξέδωκεν, ὅτε καὶ τὰς ἄλλας Περσίδας διένειμε καὶ συνῴκισε τοῖς ἑταίροις.

‘meta thn Alexandrou teleuthn’ – after the death of Alexander might look back to ‘tou archihpaspistou’ but more naturally looks forward to contextualise ‘legontas’, ie he said this after Alexander’s death.

There is a possible context where Neoptolemos would still be archihypaspist and the Macedonians might laugh him down and that is during the spontaeneous meeting after Alexander’s death to decide the succession. That would fit the stated reasons for the troops ‘ reaction which relate to Eumenes’ honours granted by Alexander rather than won by his own efforts; it is the esteem in which Alexander held him which persuades them that Neoptolemos is a clown. Plutarch does give Eumenes a role in the negotiations in chapter 3 i, reconciling the infantry and the cavalry. It is hard to see Neoptolemos on the side of the infantry, such an officer will have been with the other nobles and the cavalry, maybe it was an argument over who should negotiate with the infantry and it is the Macedonian nobles who laugh at Neoptolemos before sending Eumenes to Babylon.

The only Hypaspist commander we hear of explicitly is Seleukos and his command is the ‘Hypaspistai Basilikoi’ for those that think the HB were those Hypaspists not in the ‘agema’ this would be a quasi archihypaspist, for my part I mention it to show how little Arrian supplies with regard to the command of the Hypaspists, the individual chiliarchs do not merit a mention.

Parmenion had no sons left to inherit Nikanor’s role, unless Philotas fancied a demotion. There is no scrapping of the role on Nikanor’s death nor any foreseeing of Philotas’ negligence. Neoptolemos was probably archihypaspist when Alexander died, there seems little reason for Alexander to resurrect the role he had allegedly scrapped. Since the supposed reason was to restrict the number of troops being under the influence of one man any growth in Hypaspist strength would militate against the re-creation of the ‘archihypaspistate’. It is far more likely that the post continued but just did not attract he sources’ attention.

agesilaos wrote:There is no scrapping of the role on Nikanor’s death nor any foreseeing of Philotas’ negligence. Neoptolemos was probably archihypaspist when Alexander died, there seems little reason for Alexander to resurrect the role he had allegedly scrapped. Since the supposed reason was to restrict the number of troops being under the influence of one man any growth in Hypaspist strength would militate against the re-creation of the ‘archihypaspistate’. It is far more likely that the post continued but just did not attract he sources’ attention.

Indeed. Had Alexander scrapped the office of archihypaspist for the reasons argued, there is absolutely no reason why Perdiccas - after some eight years - would want it resurrected. He had, by the 'skin of his teeth', just managed to grasp the regency. As Arrian notes (1.5):

After this Perdiccas became the object of general suspicion and himself suspected everybody.

He'd had Meleagher foisted upon him and removed same via judicial murder and already had a chiliarch in Seleucus. If Alexander had removed the office due to fears of too much power in one man's hands why would Perdiccas - busy trying to bring Antipater onside and with Craterus in Cilicia with veteran troops - seek to restore it? Moreover, as events would show, Neoptolomus was no great supporter of the "man of blood".