THE VARIOUS GUARDS OF PHILIP II AND ALEXANDER III

Studies in this subject have generally been based on the views of H. Berve,
which were summarised in his first volume and for which individual instanc
were given in his second volume, dealing with the prosopography of Alex
der's Empire. Those views may be set out in the form of three categories of
guards, as follows:
1. "Die Leibwaichter", a few (usually seven) high-ranking officers, who were
known as "The Bodyguards", oi opLaTO(pAXCCKCg'.
2. "Die Leibgarde", formed from young Macedonian nobles ("aus jungen
makedonischen Adligen geschaffen"), who were known as "The Bodygu-
ards", ol cY tCoCpT5XcKCKg2. He thought of them as aged about twenty (e. g.
2.313, Perdiccas in 336).
3. "Die Hypaspistenleibwache", being "The King's Own Hypaspists", oi
itaaMcGTatai oh I3awiXctoi. He claimed that they were occasionally called by
Arrian (e. g. An. 4.30.3) oi YWtaToqnAxkaKcg, in order to distinguish them from
the other Hypaspists3.
He classified the Pages, oi mti3s; oi PICtcXctKOi, separately from the Gu-
ards, and he emphasised that distinction: "die Gleichsetzung von Leibhyp-
aspisten und Pagen ist also unbedingt falsch" (1.123).
In his second volume Berve was dealing with individual Macedonians. He
slotted them one by one into these three categories. He sometimes used his
placing of a man in category 2 rather than category 1 to give an indication of
his date of birth. He introduced an overlap between category 2 and category 3
in that "die Leibgarde" might be officers of "die Hypaspistenleibwache"
(2.309).
The defects of Berve's approach are that he came to the problem in order to
define the status of individual Macedonians, and that he found it necessary to
allow for movement between categories. This was particularly important when
he considered the status of the officers who were present at the assassination
of Philip (he included them in his Alexanderreich). Thus he wrote as follows.
"So ist nicht einwandfrei festzustellen, ob Perdikkas und Leonnatos, welche
Diod. (XVI, 94,4) als Somatophylakes Philipps im Jahre 336 bezeichnet, den
Leibwachtern oder, was wahrscheinlicher, der Leibgarde, wohl als Offiziere,
angehorten." What was "more probable" in this quotation became "obvious"
1 1.26.
2 1.26f. with a list of Alexander's known Leibwachter.
I 1.122f.
Historia, Band XL/4 (1991) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart
The various Guards 397
in his description of Leonnatus as belonging to the "Leibhypaspisten"4. This
attribution entailed Perdiccas and Attalus being of a similar age to that of
Leonnatus, i. e. around twenty in 3365.
The approach in this article is different. I consider the two occasions on
which we see best how the king was guarded in fact: the assassination of
Philip II and the quarrel of Alexander with Cleitus. We shall find that Berve's
category 2 does not appear in the literary evidence and that there was a further
category for which he did not make an allowance. I shall take the quarrel with
Cleitus first, because the evidence is fuller. The second section will deal with
the assassination of Philip; the third with the Guards of Philip and Alexander
on other occasions; the fourth with criteria of judgement; and the fifth with
the conclusions and the Argyraspides.
1. The quarrel between Alexander and Cleitus in 328.
A contemporary source, Aristobulus, attributed to "Ptolemy, son of Lagus,
the Somatophylax", the removal of Cleitus from the scene of the drinking-par-
ty (Arr. 4.8.9). Curtius reported that Alexander was held back by Ptolemy and
Perdiccas, and was then disarmed by Lysimachus and Leonnatus; and that
Alexander called out that he was being arrested by "his closest friends", as had
lately happened to Darius (8.1.45-7; the parallel with Darius is reported also
by Arrian at 4.8.8). We infer from this text that Perdiccas, Lysimachus and
Leonnatus, like Ptolemy, were Somatophylakes in 328, the year of the quar-
rel6. This inference is confirmed by independent evidence, which we shall cite
later. Plutarch mentioned another Somatophylax, Aristophanes7. He removed
a dagger (tyXctpi6tov) before Alexander could seize it (Alex. 51.6). These five
Bodyguards, as we may translate Somatophylakes, were the men who had the
courage (and no doubt the duty) to take control of Alexander in his rage.
Later, when Cleitus lay dead and Alexander was about to kill himself, it was
"the Bodyguards" who removed Alexander forcibly to his own room (Alex.
51.11). These Bodyguards were "his closest friends"; they were mentioned by
Justin as preventing the suicide (12.6.8, nisi amici intervenissent).
Other Guards were present. Arrian gave two variant accounts of Alexander
getting hold of a weapon, and Curtius put the two accounts in tandem.
According to Arrian (4.8.8-9) "some say that Alexander snatched a blade
(X6yXr) from one of the Somatophylakes, and others say that he snatched a
41.26 and 2.233 n. 1.
5 2.313 (Perdiccas) and 2.233 n. 2 and 92 (Attalus).
6 Curtius provided a long, rhetorical account, which came probably from several sources, of
which one was Cleitarchus. See THA 146.
7 Aristophanes was omitted in Berve's list of Alexander's Somatophylakes in 1.27. In 2.74 he
was called one of the "Hypaspistenleibwache", although nothing in the context differentiated
Aristophanes from the other four, whom Berve included in his list of "Leibwaichter".398 NiCHoLAs
G. L. HAMMOND
pike (sarssa) from one of the Guards" (TOV (pU[KWV). Curtius reported that
Alexander snatched a light spear (lancea) from the hands of an "arrniger" (one
of his words for a Somatophylax), but he was deprived of it (8.1.45); whereu-
pon he seized a pike (hasta) from one of the "vigiles", Curtius' word for
(p5XcnaKeS. It was with this pike that Alexander killed Cleitus and tried to kill
himself (8.1.49-52). Curtius went on to say that the "vigiles" wrested the
weapon from him and carried him off to his tent (8.2.4)8. The word which
Justin used for the Guard from whom Alexander took a weapon was "satel-
les" (12.6.3, telo a satellite rapto). Plutarch had Alexander seize a spear
(ai%tXl) from one of the "'Spearbearers" (TWV 5opxP66pwV)- One of these
Guards was a trumpeter. He was ordered by Alexander to sound the alarm but
disobeyed the order (Alex. 51.6; cf. Curt. 8.1.47, signumque tuba dari).
A third group were not present in the drinking-room or in the vestibule,
where one Guard was on watch (Curt. 8.1.49). Alexander tried to summon the
men of this group, namely the Hypaspists. First he called out in the Macedoni-
an dialect (Plu. Alex. 51.6 MaK5ovtOTti KakXoV Toe; OnacytcTT6). Arrian
too reported that Alexander shouted, calling for the Hypaspists; but "as no
one answered" he thought he was in the same situation as Darius had been
(4.8.8). These Hypaspists were in a camp and were under arms; for Plutarch
explained that, if the trumpeter had sounded the alarm, "the camp" (-or
cTTpaVr6iwov) would have been thrown into confusion (Alex. 51.7), and
Curtius stated that the purpose of a trumpet-call was the summoning of
"armed men" to the royal quarters (8.1.47).
We may add a few conclusions about these three groups.
(1) The five named Bodyguards and the king were either lightly armed or
had a weapon within reach; this weapon was a side-arm, named as a dagger
(tyx&tpi6tov) and as a light spear (lancea). Curtius called one Somatophylax
an "armiger" (the one from whom Alexander seized a lancea at 8.1.45; cf.
6.8.17), and elsewhere he translated Somatophylax literally as "custos corpo-
ris" (e. g. 9.8.23, of Ptolemy, son of Lagus). He used the double expression
"armigeri corporisque custodes" for the officers who persuaded Alexander to
take food again (8.2.1 1)9. The ages of the named Bodyguards in 328 are of
interest. Leonnatus, of the same age as Alexander (Curt. 3.12.16; Souda s. v.
Leonnatos) was about 28; Lysimachus, born in 361 (Lucian, Macr. 11), about
33; Ptolemy, according to Berve born not long before 360, about 35 rather
than 38 (Lucian, Macr. 12); Perdiccas, commander of a phalanx brigade and
also in command of the Camp Guard outside Thebes in 335 (Ptolemy being
cited as his authority by Arrian, 1.8.1), was probably over 40 by 328. There is
8 Here Curtius differs from Plut. Alex. 51.11, which is more likely to be correct.
9 The two terms seem to be synonymous for Curtius. It is strange that he used both together
here.
The various Guards 399
no clue to the age of Aristophanes. These Bodyguards (and two others not
named, if all seven'0 were present) had no troops under command. Their sole
concern was the king.".
(2) The Guards were armed with pikes (a6pto(cwt). When Alexander was
disarmed by two Bodyguards, he appealed to these soldiers' loyalty (Curt.
8.1.47, militum fidem implorans), and he issued an order to the trumpeter. I
take it that they were directly under Alexander's command. There is no
mention of an officer in charge of them; hence the reference to them as
'"milites". We do not know how many were on duty; but there must have been
a roster day and night. I shall call them the King's Personal Guards, which is
one meaning of oi 6opo(p6pot'2. It is to be assumed that in battle these
Personal Guards formed a separate unit and fought in the manner of phalanx
infantrymen because they were armed with the pike.
(3) The Hypaspists to whom Alexander shouted were a separate command,
stationed in the "Camp" nearby. They were an elite regiment in Alexander's
regular army, whereas the Guards were primarily Palace troops. When an
Arrny Assembly was held in the open in the vicinity of the Headquarters, a
detachment of the Hypaspists guarded the king, as we see at Opis (Arr. 7.8.3),
whereas the Guards were responsible for the security of the Headquarters.
When we compare this situation with the views of Berve, we find that his
category 2 ("die Leibgarde" of young Macedonian nobles, aged about twenty)
were not present, and that the King's Personal Guards who were present are
absent from Berve's system.
2. The assassination of Philip in 336.
Three versions of the assassination and its attendant circumstances have
survived: one by Diodorus and two by Justin. A fragmentary papyrus helps us
to understand some points in Diodorus' version, and Plutarch echoes Justin's
second version. We shall discuss the sources of the three versions in section 4.
For the present we are concerned only with Diodorus and the papyrus P. Oxy
1798 (FGrH 148 F 1); for Justin stated expressly that Philip was "without
Bodyguards when he was hastening to see the show" (9.6.3, ad quorum
spectaculum Philippus cum sine custodibus corporis ... contenderet).
A remarkable feature of Diodorus' account is its familiarity with Macedoni-
10 This number is provided by Arr. 6.28.4, citing Aristobulus, where he said that "up to then",
i. e. up to 325, there had been seven Somatophylakes. This had probably been the number at the
assassination of Philip with three running to the body of Philip and three pursuing the seventh,
Pausanias (Diod. 16.94.4).
11 Arrian emphasised this function by using the full title when he named a Somatophylax at
1.24.1: "Ptolemy, son of Seleucus, one of TOv >aTo(pvKUov tK v LotXaKiKov (cf. 2.12.2 and
3.17.2).
12 L_--J&. s. v. 11 2.
400 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND
an procedures: festival of the arts, Friends, distinguished guests, herald, ban-
quetting, drinking, oracles, recitation, assembly in the theatre, procession,
guards, ceremonial entry by the king, grants, Somatophylakes. The occasion
was one of unparallelled splendour'3. The theatre was packed with
distinguished Macedonians, envoys of the Greek states and representatives of
other states (16.91.5-92.1). At dawn a procession passed through the orchestra,
displaying many signs of Macedonia's wealth and carrying the magnificently
opulent statues of the twelve (Olympian) gods. These were followed by a
comparable statue of Philip. The royal party was still outside the theatre. It
consisted of the king, the leading Friends (including the two Alexanders - his
son and his son-in-law), the high-ranking Somatophylakes, and the "Spear-
men" (16.93.1 and 94.3, o'i opuip6pot.
Philip sent the Friends ahead into the theatre (i. e. to their reserved seats).
Philip, wearing a white cloak, entered alone from the parodos into the orche-
stra. The "Spearmen", following, fanned out and stood at a distance from him
(16.94.3; in accordance with his orders at 16.93.1). The Somatophylakes ente-
red last. They were closest to the king and near the exit from the parodos; thus
they held an honorific position. The spectators shouted out their congratula-
tions to the king. At that moment one Somatophylax, Pausanias, sprang
forward, killed the king and began to run (through the parodos) towards the
gates. "Immediately of the Somatophylakes some dashed to the king's body,
others rushed out in pursuit of the assassin. Among them were Leonnatus,
Perdiccas and Attalus" (16.94.4). Pausanias tripped and fell. As he rose, he was
stabbed to death by "Perdiccas and company" (o;t ntpi T6v Hl-pbiKKaV)'4.
The verb used for stabbing (16.94.4, aoyKcKvtC1avTmg) was appropriate to
stabbing with a dagger, as in Hdt. 3.77.3 CFaMpiFavoL Ta tXCytXtpi&6t YUYKFV-
tEoucYt. While the Somatophylakes, then, were armed with a dagger or short
sword'5, the "Spearmen" were no doubt armed with the Macedonian type of
spear, the sarissa. Thus the Somatophylakes and the "Spearmen" of Philip
correspond exactly with the Somatophylakes and the Guards of Alexander in
the quarrel with Cleitus.
13 It set the fashion for the spectacular festivals and processions with statues of gods and rulers
of the Hellenistic period, for which see examples in M. M. Austin, 7he Hellenistic Worldfrom
Alekander to the Roman Conquest (Cambridge, 1981).
14 The phrase is used to avoid repeating Leonnatus, Perdiccas and Attalus; the name "Perdic-
cas" indicated that he was the most important of the three in the opinion of Diodorus (and of his
source probably).
15 The weapon of the assassin attracted interest from various authors. Diodorus called it "a
Celtic dagger" (16.94.3 KeXTlK R6XLaLpo) perhaps a contribution from Diyllus, who was
writing during the Celtic invasions of Macedonia; Justin 9.7.13 called it a sword (gladium),
dedicated to Apollo by Olympias under the name of Myrtale, her childhood nickname; and
Aelian VH3.45 had on the handle of the sword (t'(po4) a chariot as an emblem, which fulfilled
an oracle issued from Trophonium in Boeotia. These variants remind us that there were several
accounts of the assassination in antiquity.
The various Guards 401
The positions of the king, the Spearmen and the Somatophylakes at the
moment before Pausanias sprang forward can be inferred from the vivid
narrative of Diodorus'6. I show them in Figure 1. It will help us to understand
the fragment of the second-century A. D. narrative which gave a report of the
trial after Philip's death. The text may be restored as follows".
T OIq JTC u'-
ToO tv 0JE6T[p]ot Ka[i d*-
KoxoU0Oug dinteXu-
oc3v TO(5 TIE?s IEpi Op6V[OV.
5 T6V 8? dv-T]l V TOot; M[at-
KC866t Rt]ap(OKE [KO-
X6YcEL, oL &l d]t 11TuidV[t-
(av aVc6]v. T6 &t oG3c[a
ToO 4DlXIiItOU Op&-
10 itOU'Ct OWJai tapt85)K[F
........ .tiepi rhv [ta-
(Pv ..... ]GKk[
"Those with him in the theatre and his followers they acquitted and those
around the throne. The diviner he delivered to the Macedones to punish and
they crucified him. The body of Philip he delivered to attendants to bury . . ."
In this account "'those with him in the theatre" were the surviving Somatophy-
lakes. "His followers" (&KKoXo69oug being echoed by Diodorus' GUVOCKo-
Xox$ctv at 16.93.1) were the Spearmen. "Those around the throne" were the
leading Friends, beside whom Philip would have been sitting, if he had
survived to watch the show. All of these persons were evidently under suspi-
cion, because it was thought that Pausanias and his accomplices had planned
to strike during the show. The agreement between the narrative of Diodorus
and this fragment of a Hellenistic historian writing in the third or second
century is in favour of taking Diodorus' detailed narrative as historically
accurate'8.
We have seen that the Somatophylakes of Philip were like those of Alexan-
der. Were they of comparable ages? Perdiccas was particularly important (oi
nmpi ToV Flcp8iiKKaV). It happens that the extensive literary record of Alexan-
der's reign which survives mentions only one Perdiccas: the brigadier of a
phalanx brigade in the Balkan campaign and outside Thebes during 335, and
16 We have the illustration of the theatre at Aegeae in Vergina 47 which shows the lefthand
parodos; I put the procession in the righthand parodos
17 P. Oxy. 15.1798, as restored by me in GRBS 19 (1978) 343ff. with discussion of the interpreta-
tion which I am giving here.
18 The publishers of the fragment, Grenfell and Hunt, wrote "there seems to be no place" for
the name Pausanias, and no one has been able to introduce it into the text. Yet the idea that the
Macedonians crucified Pausanias in lines 7-8 has persisted in U. Wilcken (Sitz. Berlin 1923.
150f.), J. R. Hamilton, Plutarch, Alexander (Oxford, 1969) 27, and A. B. Bosworth in CQ 21
(1971) 94 "someone (clearly Pausanias) is handed over to the Macedonians". Ellis 307 n. 59 was more
cautious

402 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND

trusted with the additional task of commanding the "Camp Guard" outside
Thebes (Arr. 1.6.9 and 8.1). As Philip fell in 336 and as Perdiccas was not
chosen by Alexander to be one of his Somatophylakes until 330, Perdiccas
must have earned his high position in 335 through distinguished service over
some years under Philip. We may conclude that he was well over 30 in 336'9.
There is only one Attalus in Diodorus' narrative, from 16.91.2 to 17.5.2. If he
was the uncle of Cleopatra, as Berve concluded20, he is likely to have been in
his thirties. And the allocation of a command in Asia alongside Parmenion
(16.91.2; 93.3; 17.2.4) indicated a similar age. Pausanias had recently been
given "considerable grants" by Philip (16.93.9 6cpc6a dc toX6youw)2' and
honourable promotion into the ranks of the Somatophylakia22. Royal grants
were given in recognition of distinguished service to the king. To be a Somato-
phylax was a further recognition. He too should be

The various Guards 403

Leonnatus cannot be the contemporary of Alexander, aged about 20 in 336
(Souda s. v. Leonnatos, cnuvTppc;ig 'AXF,6v6pcp)23. He was probably the
Leonnatus of a recently published inscription who was appointed to fix the
boundaries in allocations of land by Alexander near Philippi in 335. If the
emendation from "Leontam" to "Leonnatum" is accepted in Ps.-Callisth. 2.2,
he will be the Leonnatus who was a Macedonian envoy to Athens in 335, and
probably the Companion of that name in 327 who laughed at a ceremony of
proskynesis (Arr. 4.12.2). He is likely to have been in his thirties at least in 336.
Two men called Leonnatus were trierarchs of the fleet on the Hydaspes in 326
(Arr. Ind. 18.3 and 6, sons of Eunous and Antipater respectively)24.
When we compare this span of ages - say 30 to 40 - with the span of ages of
Alexander's Somatophylakes during the quarrel with Cleitus in 328 - 28 to
40 + - we see that they match well enough. When we compare our findings
with those of Berve for the assassination of Philip, we find that we have
high-ranking Somatophylakes, whereas he has none of them (his "Leibwaich-
ter"); we have no officers of twenty or so years old, whereas he has four
"Leibgarden" of such an age (Perdiccas, Attalus, Pausanias and Leonnatus,
son of Anteas); we have "Spearmen" as Personal Guards, whereas he has
none such but in their place puts Hypaspists ("Leibhypaspisten") although
Hypaspists do not figure in any of the versions of the assassination. On my
interpretation the Hypaspists were encamped nearby, perhaps in the Acropo-
lis of Aegeae, where barracks were found during the excavations25. They were
not called upon at Aegeae as they were in the quarrel with Cleitus.
3. The Guards of Philip and Alexander on other occasions.
The oldest form of Guard was a king's Personal Guard. We hear of it first in
a fragment of Theopompus, a contemporary of Philip and the author of a
history The Philippica: "men selected from all the Macedones, the tallest and
the strongest, used to guard the king and were called Pezhetairoi" (FGrH 115
20 The sources differ on the relationship. Berve 2.94 was following Satyrus in Athenae. 557 d,
which is probably the best source for this detail.
21 These grants are not mentioned by Berve, Bosworth, Griffith and Ellis in their comments
on the assassination account.
22 Ellis 224 "he (Alexander) ... promoted him to a higher rank among the body-guards" is
improbable in that the Bodyguards seem to have been on a par with one another. For an
explanation of Diod. 17.61.3 see below.
23 The son of Anteas (Arr. 6.28.4; cf. Arr. Succ. I a 2, ed. Roos).
24 For the inscription see C. Vatin, Acta of the 8th International Congress of Greek and Latin
Epigraphy (Athens, 1984) 1.259ff.; L. Missitzis, 'A Royal Decree of Alexander the Great on the
lands of Philippi', The Ancient World 12 (1985), line 7; and my article in CQ 38 (1988) 382ff. for
the king's rights over conquered land. It was assumed by Berve that one of these trierarchs - the
son of Eunous - was the famous Leonnatus; but it is uncertain.
25 Vergina 22 mentioned a guard-room, and the Phylax there showed me the foundations of
such barracks when I visited the site.
404 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND
F 348). This is augmented by a comment which may have come from Theo-
pompus: "some say that the Pezhetairoi were the guards of the person of
Philip" (EM 699.48, tOi5 REpi T6 0&a6a TOO (DWXiito ppopog). "Pezhe-
tairoi" were also a fighting unit, in that they were mentioned by Demosthenes
in 349 as "well-drilled for war" (2.17, tc?ftatpot together with his "foreign"
troops). They appeared also as a select unit during an invasion of Illyris (EM
669.47)26, which may have been that of 358, when Philip led "the best of the
Macedones" on the right wing of his phalanx against the Illyrians of Bardylis
(Diod. 16.4.5). This particular name was no doubt first given to the Personal
Guard when the word "pezhetairos" was invented by an Alexander, i. e. by an
Alexander before the reign of Philip, who is to be identified with Alexander II,
Philip's eldest brother27. The name is virtually explained by Anaximenes as a
combination of "pezoi" and "hetairoi", meaning "Infantry Companions",
because they too were to share in the Companionate of the King (FGrH 72
F 4).
When the Pezhetairoi Guard was formed, the men were selected from the
Macedones of the then kingdom (Lower Macedonia and Eordaea). After his
victory in 358 Philip incorporated Upper Macedonia; and in the following
years he created his phalanx which consisted thenceforth of both Pezhetairoi
brigades and Asthetairoi brigades, the former drawn from the old kingdom
and the latter from Upper Macedonia28. The Personal Guard of Philip conti-
nued to be called "Pezhetairoi", because its men continued to be drawn from
the Macedones of the old kingdom. As a fighting unit, it was called "The
Guard of the Macedones' - r6 &yTa T6 T6V MQKC66VOV -, as we shall see.
The guardsmen themselves were called by Greek writers "Spearmen" (oi
5opunp6pot)29, and "by some writers" "Guards" (.p5UXaCKg in the quarrel with
Cleitus). It seems likely that in Macedonia they were also called "Body-
guards" (GoMcCToDpiXaK6g), which arose naturally from their guarding of the
body of Philip (EM 699.50, T0oi ,wpi T6 a6ta ToOD DLito ppoupo6S).
The Hypaspists were an important fighting force in the Balkan campaign
and at Thebes in 335. They must therefore have played that role also in the
latter part at least of the reign of Philip. When Alexander crossed to Asia in
26 Kai T6V MaCK,66Vov Tobs M?VTCL'Ppouq pv KcXXoupkvOu; 6vTaS 8t &EoX&KTOU5 9xoV
tvtpa4v el; nrv 'IXXupi8a. Griffith in HM 2.709 suggested later dates, 345 and 337. See my
forthcoming article in Antichiho t
27 Other suggestions are Alexander I (Ellis 53, G. Wirth, Philipp II. (Stuttgart, 1985) 156) and
Alexander III (e. g. Griffith in HM2.705-9). For my reasons see TMS98 and 148.
28 See TMS 149f., where I mention also the asthippoi being cavalry probably from Upper
Macedonia.
29 it was used by Diodorus, drawing on Diyllus, at 16.93.1 and 94.3, since it suggested that
Philip was an autocrat. Pausanias was described as 8opu(p6pog by P Oxy. 1.12, col III. 24/25,
whereas Josephus AJ 9.1.13 called him a ocqtatopOX(at of the king and at 11.8.1 supplied his
patronymic Kcp6aTou and gave his origin as Orestis (as in Diod. 16.93.3). In Plu. Mor. 170 e
Pausanias t8opuy6pct 'DiXitnov.
The various Guards 405
334, he took 12,000 Macedonian infan
te, 3,000 were Hypaspists. Of that 3,000 one brigade was known as "The
King's Own Hypaspists". As a fighting unit it was called "'The Guard of the
Hypaspists". Thus in the order of battle at Gaugamela in 331 the leading
infantry unit was tr6 CiyaCt t6iv itarntato6&v, and it was followed by "The
other Hypaspists", oi XkXot twnuaTdai (An. 3.11.9). This Guard, and conse-
quently the other Hypaspists, were recruited from men of both Lower and
Upper Macedonia. For when Alexander shouted in the Macedonian dialect
for the Hypaspists, Plutarch explained that the use of the dialect was peculiar
to an order concerning a serious riot (Alex. 51.6). It follows that all other orders
were in standard Greek, which was the common denominator of the whole
army. In addressing the Pezhetairoi Alexander may well have spoken in their
dialect, "Macedonian". As we saw in the quarrel with Cleitus, the King's Own
Hypaspists were not "Bodyguards" (aajiaTo(puaCKcg). Rather, they were
troops posted near the Palace (Diodorus wrote of oitcpi XRi v avXikv tstaYti-
cai-c at 17.110.1) or Headquarters. On campaigns they fought either in the
phalanx or as a separate force, e. g. in the Balkan campaign (An. 1.1.7 and
1.2.6-7 as contrasted with 1.1.11)30.
We see these various units in action in 335. "Alexander himself took on the
left the agema and the Hypaspists and the Agrianians" (Anf. 1.1.11). Here the
agema is the agema of the Guards. Outside Thebes Alexander sent the
Archers and the Agrianians ahead to help the two phalanx brigades but kept
back "the agemata and the Hypaspists" (1.8.3). When the defeated troops fell
back in disorder, they were received first by the agemata, namely -T6 6iyqgcc
To TWV MXKES'V(OV KCUTO1g 5TEbta,a cc TO& q 0altXtKcOUg (1.8.4). In 333
at the battle of Issus the righthand part of the infantry phalanx was held by T6
it CyrY-xa Ktto ToI) rnucru6g (2.8.3). In 326 when advancing towards
Porus, Alexander ordered his infantry forces in this order: "the King's Own
Hypaspists" (tol) o7tCamLc(TCEg TOg 0aoLttKcOU;), next to them "The King's
Own Guard" (T6 &YTICL T6 IcLCGtktK6v), and next to them "the other Hypa-
spists" (5.13.4). It is clear that "the agema of the Macedones"31, the agema ",
and "the King's Own Guard" were one and the same thing. It appears that
they were also called "The King's Own Somatophylakes" (3.17.2) or just "The
Somatophylakes" (4.3.2 and 4.30.3). At Gaugamela in 331 Hephaestion was
wounded "while commanding the Somatophylakes" (Diod. 17.61.3 tOv
30 For other accounts see Berve 1.126ff., Tarn 2.148ff., Ellis 53 and Griffith in HM2.414ff. and
712.
31 1 take it that the traditional agema, which had been called the agema of Pezhetairoi
probably since the reform by Alexander II, lost that name sometime late in Philip's reign. By
then, when the brigades of Upper Macedonia were fully developed in the army, this agema took
its name from the "Macedones proper", those of the early kingdom, because it recruited men
only from them. This restricted used of "Macedones" is seen in Thuc. 2.99.6, on which I
commented in HM 1.436f.

406 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND

OO)gaXtO(pPUX6KOV iY04yobvoq); the b
commanding "The King's Own Somatophylakes" at the time32.
The high-ranking Somatophylakes fought in battle alongside the king,
whom it was their duty to protect. In the Balkan campaign of 335 the phalanx,
which included the Hypaspists, terrified the Illyrians by its display of drill and
then its threatening movements. Thereupon, seeing that those who held a
ridge were "not many", Alexander ordered "the Somatophylakes and the
Companions round himself" to mount and charge towards the ridge (1.6.5).
Arrian referred back to this group simply as "the Companions", a term which
comprised them all (1.6.6)33. Several Somatophylakes were wounded during
the campaigns in Asia. When Alexander was ill, they attended him; and they
issued reports, which on two occasions the army thought might be untrue
(6.12.3 tGv d49(p' aCtuTv ao0aTo(puX6Ko)v; 7.26.1)34.
The ages at which some high-ranking officers were appointed by Alexander
to be Somatophylakes are as follows. Leonnatus, the contemporary of Alexan-
der, was appointed in 332/1 (Arr. 3.5.5) at the age of 24 or 25; in his case there
was a special ground for an early appointment, namely that he was a member
of the royal house. Perdiccas, who had been a Somatophylax of Philip, was
appointed by Alexander in 330 (Curt. 6.8.17), when he was nearer 40 than 30
(see p. 398 above). Peucestas was appointed in 325 for his exceptional courage
at the city of the Malli (Arr. 6.28.3)35; if he had been on the expedition from
the start, as Berve supposed, he was at least 29. Ptolemy, son of Lagus,
appointed in 330, was in his early thirties. When we compare these ages with
those of Philip's Somatophylakes (see p. 4 above), we see that the spread of
ages was comparable.
4. Some criteria of judgement in handling the evidence.
Because our conclusions differ so widely from those of Berve and the
scholars who have shared his views, it is desirable to consider our criteria of
judgement. I shall begin with the evidence for the assassination of Philip. For
32 The present tense of the participle suggests that Hephaestion was in command at the time
of
the battle, and not the continuous or regular commander of it. The troops he was
commanding
were not "the agema of the Hypaspists and the other Hypaspists", who were under the
command
of Nicanor at Gaugamela (Arr. 3.11.9).
33 Brunt, L 1.27 n. 1 "i. e. the hypaspists" is unacceptable, because the hypaspists were
acting as
part of the phalanx throughout this action (e. g. in crossing the river at 1.6.6). Alexander was
leading an attack by cavalrymen against "not many Illyrians". Berve 1.28 and Bosworth C
1.72
saw that they were the high-ranking Bodyguards.
34 They had other duties at court. In Polyaenus 4.3.24 they sat alongside the king while he
was
acting as a judge.
35 He became satrap of Persis soon afterwards and ceased to be a Bodyguard. Berve 1.27
seems
to be mistaken in including Peucestas among the Bodyguards he listed for 324 and 323.
The various Guards 407
it is from different approaches to the
important disagreement stems.
The worth of Diodorus' account depends upon the source or sources which
he used in the last part of Book 16 and the early chapters of Book 17. My
analysis of the sources of Book 16 was published in CQ 31 (1937) 79ff. and 32
(1938) 137ff., and my analysis of the sources of Book 17 was given in Three
Historians of Alexander the Great: the so-called Vulgate authors, Diodorus,
Justin and Curtius (Cambridge, 1983) 12-85. It is appropriate here to give a
summary of my conclusions for the setting and the aftermath of the assassina-
tion. In my opinion Diodorus used for it a single source, and that source was
conversant both with the speeches of the Athenian orators and with the
conditions at the Macedonian court, and had a preference for the evidence of
eyewitnesses and of documents. The account of the assassination is graphic
and consistent. I reckoned that the source was Diyllus of Athens. On my
interpretation Diodorus drew on Syntaxis II of Diyllus' history for his own
Book 16.77.2-3, 84-88.2 and 91-94 and for Book 17.2.1 and 5.3-6.3; and he
drew on Syntaxis III for 17.2.2-5.2, 7.1-3 and 8.1.14. The fact that Diodorus at
16.76.6 cited Diyllus of Athens, Syntaxis II as going "up the death of Philip" is
a strong indication that my reckoning was correct. Born in the decade
350-340, Diyllus carried his "general history in 26 Syntaxeis" down to c. 296,
as Diodorus reported in Book 21 fr. 5. Two fragments show him as a compe-
tent historian, interested in a state funeral at Aegeae and in a homosexual
affair (FGrH 73 F 1 and F 4). Thus Diyllus was of an age to have met
eyewitnesses of the assassination of Philip, which was a subject of interest as
fascinating then as the assassination of any head of state is today.
It should be emphasised that Diyllus and Diodorus were writing history not
with a backward look to Philip's last days, as Berve and other Alexander-hi-
storians have been apt to do, but in the normal way forwards from Philip's
doings to those of Alexander. Thus the suggestion of C. Bradford Welles36
that, when Diodorus named "Somatophylakes of Philip" at 16.93.3 and at
16.94.4, he was "probably" giving us "his (Alexander's) bodyguards and not
Philip's" is to be ruled out of order both chronologically and thematically.
Justin was abbreviating the history of Trogus, who wrote, like Diodorus, at
the end of the Roman Republic. Justin 9.6.4 and Trogus, Prologue 9 had
Pausanias kill Philip "occupatis angustiis", i. e. within the parodos of the
theatre, whereas Diodorus had the killing in the orchestra of the theatre. Justin
said that Philip was "without his Bodyguards", whereas Diodorus had him
accompanied by both Guards (oi 8opuqp6pot) and Bodyguards (ol aogcLo-
(puXaKEg). Justin's chapter was inspired probably by the account of a Greek
36 In the Loeb edition of Diodorus vol. VIII p. 101 n. 2.
408 NICHOLAS G. L HAMMOND
writer, Cleitarchus, who preferred sensational w
The next chapter, 9.7, which supplies the second version, has points in com-
mon with Plutarch, Alexander 9.6-11 and 10.6-8, and with Athenaeus 13.557
b-e. My conclusion was that all three were drawing on the source cited by
Athenaeus, namely Satyrus, Life of Philipj8. This Satyrus, writing around the
middle of the third century, delighted in anecdotes of a derogatory kind and
enjoyed pillorying the Macedonian kings and their court.
All three versions were interested in the personal motive of the assassin,
Pausanias. The most important evidence on that aspect was provided not by
any of them but by Aristotle, the philosopher at the court of Philip and the
instructor of Alexander9. In Politics 1311 a-b Aristotle was giving examples of
the personal motives which inspired assassins to kill kings or tyrants. Resent-
ment at physical outrage such as sexual abuse and sexual taunts came first in
his list: the Peisistratids insulting Harmodius' sister, Periander taunting his
male beloved, and Philip "allowing Pausanias to be outraged by Attalus and
company" (6ut T6 -To a txax ipta-c91vctt ct5-r6v iti T6 v mt'pi ATTQXOV).
We are told what that outrage was by Diodorus, our fullest source, in
16.93.3-9. He alone gives us the origin and the standing of the man who was to
be the assassin. Pausanias was a Makedon by birth (i. e. a full citizen) from
Orestis (his local ward), and "a Bodyguard of the king, and because of his
beauty he had become a friend of Philip" (16.93.3 ToO t &actXkxog cojwtwo-
(p'XCC Kca ala TO K6XXOg .piXog yCYOV65 TOoo ODXiitX7ou). The suggestion in
the context was probably not that he had become one of the high-ranking
Friends in Philip's court, but that he had become the object of the king's love
at a time in the past when he had been a youth and the king a mature man'
(for standard homosexual affairs in Greece and Macedonia were not between
adults but between man and boy). Now, being a Somatophylax, Pausanias
was a mature man himself. It seems from Diodorus' account that he was
homosexually interested in a boy of the same name who was attracting the
love of the king. Pausanias therefore insulted the boy, calling him a promiscu-
ous hermaphrodite4". The boy told Attalus, "one of the Friends" (Xtvt 1ov
31 THA 87-92.
38 THA 89.
39 His statement is dependable because he was a contemporary writing for contemporaries,
who knew what was true and what was false; see G. T. Griffith in HM2.690.
0 As beauty was a qualification for recruitment into the Guard (e. g. in Arr. 7.6.3 and
Polyaenus 4.3.24 of the Persian elite troops), it could also have contributed to selection to be
a
Friend. But the form of the sentence with 'v in front of the pLtv and 6t indicates that he "was a
Somatophylax of the king" and "had been (earlier) a friend (in the homosexual sense) of
Philip"
(the change from "the king" to the personal name being relevant).
41 Such taunts were usually reported as uttered by the lover towards the beloved (e. g. in
Arist.
Politics 1311 b 2 and 4).
The various Guards 409
(pXov)42, that as a result of the insult he intended to commit suicide - which
he did by exposing himself to blows aimed at the king in battle against
Pleurias, an Illyrian king, i. e. in 33743. Attalus avenged his death by inviting
Pausanias to dinner, making him drunk and exposing him to sexual abuse by
Attalus' muleteers. When he sobered up, Pausanias accused Attalus in the
presence of the king. But Philip did nothing to Attalus, because Attalus was
related to his recently married wife, Cleopatra, and had been chosen (npOKE-
xctptaL?vog) to command the force sent in advance to Asia (16.93.9); indeed,
Philip was a close friend of Attalus and had need of him at the time. Yet, in
order to soothe Pausanias, "the king assigned considerable grants to him and
gave him honourable promotion in the matter of being a Somatophylax"
(60)pF_6; 6ttOXoyOO; CE&vUIREV ct0TQ Kal KcLaT6 rTiv o(o%Lato(pUXaKtcaV
IpOlycV aDT6v tv-r4w)g).
The giving "of considerable grants" (&wopuazg 6toX6youg)", usually of
land, to high-ranking and deserving Macedonians was a common practice of
Philip and Alexander. Promotion to be a Somatophylax was a signal honour.
In 325 Alexander appointed Peucestas to be a Somatophylax, extra numerum
as the eighth, because he wanted Peucestas to have "this honour and mark of
confidence" (6.28.3, MOaT%Mg Ttfl 'u1g Kai IdiGTE&5). There is then no doubt
that Pausanias was appointed one of the high-ranking Somatophylakes of
Philip late in 337 or early in 336.
Justin's first version had nothing to say of a boy called Pausanias and his
suicide. He was concerned only with the future assassin Pausanias, whom he
described as "a growing lad" (9.6.4, adulescens). In the first years of his
puberty this lad had been sexually abused by Attalus. To that outrage a filthy
trick had been added. Pausanias was invited by Attalus to dinner, was made
drunk, and was sexually abused not only by Attalus but also by his guests.
Consequently Pausanias became the laughing-stock of his contemporaries
(inter aequales, i. e. among other growing lads). Pausanias complained "often"
42 Not "one of his friends" i. e. lovers, as C. Bradford Welles translated in the Loeb edition,
but
"of the Friends" for which see the mentions at 91.56 and 94.3.
43 Berve 2.308 and many others equated Pleurias with Pleuratus and dated the battle to
344/3,
with the result that, if the two Pausaniases were contemporaries of some 17 years of age, the
assassin Pausanias would have been 24 or 25 years of age in 336. Berve thought this gap
between
the death of the boy Pausanias and the act of the assassin unacceptable, and he therefore
doubted the story. In BSA 61 (1966) 245 with n. 27 I argued against the identification of
Pleurias
with Pleuratus and maintained that the battle to which Diodorus referred took place in 337;
this
was accepted for instance by Griffith in HM2.473 and 684. The boy Pausanias was without
doubt a Page in his last year (thus old enough to fight in battle); see my article in Historia 39,
1990, 265.
44 I take KaT6 to be in the sense of "in the matter of", "concerning" (see LS-J9 s. v. B IV 2),
and
not as Ellis 224 interprets "to a higher rank among the body-guards".
410 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND
to Philip4". Being put off "not without laughter" and seeing his adversary
honoured additionally with a command (ducatu), Pausanias switched his
hatred to Philip and exacted revenge from the unjust judge (9.6.8). Lying in
wait in a narrow place (i. e. the parodos) he killed Philip "as he was passing
without (his) Bodyguards on his way to see the show" (9.6.3-4, sine custodibus
corporis).
This account is not compatible with that of Diodorus. Either because he
was confused by two persons having the same name or because it made a
more sensational story, Justin provided a boy Pausanias who became the
assassin. Additional colouring was added: Pausanias had been deflowered at
a tender age by Attalus, he was sexually maltreated not by mere muleteers but
by Attalus and Attalus' guests, and the whole affair was greeted with ridicule
and even by the king "not without laughter". Greater degradation at the
Macedonian court could hardly be imagined. The killing was made under
different circumstances. Philip was walking between his son and his new
son-in-law, both called Alexander, when he was struck down. "He was with-
out (his) Bodyguards".
However, Justin was not finished with his horrors. In 9.7 he brought
Olympias and Alexander into the plot, but with the reservation that their
complicity "was supposed" (9.7.1 and 8, creditum est ... creduntur). Plutarch
shared some of these ideas with Justin'4. In his brief account Pausanias was a
"young lad" (Alex. 10.6, VEctviaKog). Olympias spurred him on, and Alexan-
der was privy to the plot; and Plutarch went one better by adding Cleopatra to
Attalus as the schemer of the outrage committed on Pausanias. With reference
to the complicity of Alexander Plutarch added the cautionary qualification "it
is said". There was, of course, none of this in Diodorus' account.
In making a choice between the two main accounts we have to bear in mind
the circumstances. When the assassination took place, the boy Pausanias had
been dead for a year; then the king lay dead, Pausanias the Bodyguard was
killed, and some months later Attalus and Cleopatra were executed. None of
those who were said to have been involved in personal amours were available
to be questioned or to tell a tale. One can see that there was plenty of room for
writers to introduce variations and invent episodes. Which account is to be
preferred? The salient feature of Diodorus' account is, as we have noted, its
clear understanding of the Macedonian court, its ceremonial and its customs.
It was much more thorough than any other surviving account. It gave the
origin and status of Pausanias, and the origin of the enmity between Pausanias
and Attalus, an origin which involved the Macedonian custom of Pages
45 If Pausanias had been a Page, as this version implies, he would have had great difficulty
in
getting to talk to the king, as we see in the case of the Philotas episode.
46 See THA 87-90 for an analysis.
The various Guards 411
fighting alongside the king in battle;
punishing Attalus in terms of Attalus' outstanding position, prestige and
courage in action47 (16.93.8-9). It is much superior to the account of Justin,
which concentrated on sexual misconduct at court and reduced the age of
Pausanias the assassin to that of a Page. Moreover, if my analysis of the
sources for the two versions is correct, Diodorus relying on Diyllus is prefera-
ble to Justin-Trogus relying on Cleitarchus. For Cicero, Quintilian, Curtius
and Strabo were unanimous in finding the history of Cleitarchus - which they
knew, whereas we have only a few fragments - careless of the truth and
untrustworthy48.
Berve did not analyse the sources of the three versions. He preferred to
make an amalgam of the versions and give a preference to Justin's first
version49. For instance, he favoured the complicity of Olympias from Justin's
second version, the scene of the killing in the parodos from Justin's first
version, the overtaking of Pausanias by the Somatophylakes from Diodorus'
version (he did not mention the absence of Somatophylakes in Justin's first
version), and a crucifixion of Pausanias from Justin's second version. Berve
did not investigate the stories of homosexual loves and abuses; he simply
remarked that Pausanias had "supposedly" (angeblich) been abused by Atta-
lus, and for that he cited not Aristotle or even Justin but Diodorus and
Plutarch. More importantly, he assumed that the Somatophylakes were not
the high-ranking Somatophylakes (Berve's "Leibwachter") but young "Leib-
garde", some twenty years old, who belonged to the "Leibhypaspisten". He
identified the other three Somatophylakes as the famous Perdiccas, as Alexan-
der's contemporary Leonnatus, and as Attalus, son of Andromenes, another
contemporary of Alexander. This last identification presupposed that Diodo-
rus failed to point out that this Attalus was not the Attalus of his narrative but
a different person. Berve did not comment on Diodorus' other guards, ot
8opwp6pot; if pressed, he would presumably have said that they were "Leib-
hypaspisten". Although he accepted from Diodorus the presence of the Soma-
tophylakes, he preferred the second version of Justin that Pausanias was
crucified to the version of Diodorus that he was killed by three Somatophy-
lakes5?.
Of recent writers we may cite G. T. Griffith and A. B. Bosworth5l. Neither
47 Exceptional personal courage was a qualification for becoming a Somatophylax, as Attalus
was (Diod. 16.94.4); Peucestas was an example of such courage.
48 See FGrH 137 T 6 and 7, Strabo e. g. 505, Curt. 9.5.21, and Plu. Alex. 46.1; see F. Jacoby
FGrH
II B 489.
49 Mainly in 2.308-9.
50 This type of arbitrary choice of items in varying sources has been a characteristic of much
writing on Alexander; my view on the need for source analysis is set out in THA 1-11.
51 In HM 2.676-91 and in CQ 21.93-7; Bosworth comments on the assassination also in
Conquest and Empire (Cambridge, 1988) 22-3 and 25-6. See also the account of Ellis 222-7,
who
412 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND
engaged in source-analysis for Diodorus, Jus
the homosexual scenario with his usual sense of humour. He accepted as
historical a situation in which Pausanias and the young boy Pausanias had
been "rivals for Philip's favours", this being his understanding of Diod.
16.93.4. From then on he followed Diodorus' account and did not mention
Justin's variations on the theme. Of the promotion of Pausanias as a Somato-
phylax he stated in a footnote that the word was "here presumably not in its
specialized sense", and in his text that Pausanias "was made one of the
officers of the king's Guards". In other words he was following Berve's
interpretation. He did not mention Philip's giving of "considerable grants" to
Pausanias or discuss the ages and standing of the other Somatophylakes,
except to say in a footnote that they were those identified by Berve. In
particular he argued that the Somatophylax who joined in the killing of
Pausanias could not be the Attalus who figures elsewhere in Diodorus' narra-
tive, because that Attalus was absent in Asia. Here Griffith was referring to
Diodorus' mention of Attalus' command in Asia. But there is no reason why
Attalus should not have returned by sea to attend the ceremony at Aegeae52.
In CQ 21 (1971) 94ff. A. B. Bosworth discussed the worth of Diodorus'
narrative in the last chapters of Book 16. His attitude may be described as
censorious. He found what he called "at least one major inaccuracy - the
placing of the clash between Demosthenes and Python of Byzantium at the
conference at Thebes shortly before Chaeronea" (Diod. 16.85.3-4), instead of
five years previously at Athens. But this is to misrepresent Diodorus; for
Diodorus mentioned both occasions, the first in 85.3 being at Thebes, and the
second in 85.4 being a reference to one of "the speeches composed by him" (in
fact the De Corona), in which Demosthenes boasted of his victory over
Python. Diodorus (and his source) was not confusing the two occasions at all.
Bosworth then cites "the notorious howler that after the abandonment of the
siege of Byzantium Philip made peace with the Athenians and his other
enemies in Greece (77.3)". Here Bosworth is too positive. What Diodorus
wrote was that "Philip made peace with the Athenians and those who were
opposing him", namely those just mentioned, being "Chios, Cos, Rhodes and
some others", i. e. opposing him at Perinthus and Byzantium. That Philip did
negotiate for peace and that he did make peace with Perinthus, Byzantium
and some at least of these opponents has seemed probable, for instance to
set out the three versions and commented on their plausibility and implausibility, but without
analysing the sources behind them. He thought that Diodorus' version was "the official ver-
sion"; but to whom was it issued?
52 Whether it was in July - the usual view - or in October as Bosworth, C45f. has suggested.
The advance-force had naval control (cf. Trogus, Prologue 9 praemissa classe cum ducibus).
The various Guards 413
G. T. Griffith53. It seems that Diodorus was guilty rather of an error in
abbreviating his source than of "a notorious howler". However, Bosworth
concluded that there are "'no good grounds for accepting his (Diodorus')
account ... the manner of his (Philip's) death must remain a mystery"54.
Bosworth, C 1.72 repeated and accepted Berve's two categories of Somato-
phylakes, the high-ranking ones and "the elite agema of the hypaspists"
(Berve's "Leibhypaspisten"), and Berve's identification of Leonnatus the So-
matophylax of 336 as the famous Leonnatus, then twenty years old, and as a
member of the elite hypaspists (p. 220).
Those who follow Berve's interpretation have difficulty in explaining cer-
tain passages in Arrian's history. For instance, at 1.8.3 the text ta 6i hyMRjjata
has to be emended to t6 5ti &yiia xe and at 1.8.4 T6 7yf%ta T6 Tov
McCKS6VIOV Kia tob) titcyaltmtcC TOq IOcTtXWKol;ov has to be fused into a
single agema; or, if the text is retained, the Cavalry Guard has to be introdu-
ced and identified with To a7YCt6t -0 TWV MaKE66VoV, whereas the fighting
was clearly between infantry formations only55. In other passages which we
have noted above they have to argue that, when Arrian wrote "the agema and
the hypaspists", he meant to say "the agema of the hypaspists and the other
hypaspists" (yet he could and did say that in those very words at 3.11.9). W. W.
Tam cut the Gordian knot by claiming that "the Royal hypaspists and the
hypaspists are the same thing" and that "the agema of the hypaspists" was
also called "'simply the hypaspists" (2.150-1). Why then did Arrian write such
a passage as 5.13.4: "of the infantry he posted first the King's Own Hypaspists,
next the King's Own agema, and adjacent to them the other Hypaspists"?
Tam's answer (2.192) was characteristic. "What has happened to Arrian's text
is simple enough (how it happened is another matter): the hypaspists are given
twice over and the phalanx has fallen out." For this there is no justification in
the state of the text or in the technical terms; yet it has been endorsed, e. g. by
Kienast 282 who found the text "offensichtlich verderbt". The case which I
have put forward is that Ptolemy and Aristobulus were the sources used by
Arrian for military matters in particular, and that they were using the specific
technical terms of the Macedonian army of their day. In his first book Arrian
was particularly careful to reproduce those terms. From them we gain an
insight into the organisation of Philip's army in Philip's last years. I see no
grounds for altering or rewriting the text of Arrian in these matters.
53 In HM 2.579ff.; and to me in A History of Greece to 322 B. C. (Oxford, 1959 and 3rd ed.
1986) 564.
54 In CQ 21.96.
55 Bosworth, C l.81f. set out the problem clearly.
414 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND
5. Conclusions and Argyraspides.
The conclusions to which the thorough study of the evidence has led us may
be summarised as follows.
1. Philip and Alexander appointed high-ranking officers, varying in age
from 25 to early 40s, to be Bodyguards, normally seven in number. In Mace-
donian terminology they were called in full "The King's Own Somatophyla-
kes" ot Ca cto(pU'XacK6 oi akLcfl?tKoi and for short "The Somatophylakes"
oi 4LaTO(p XaKEq. Arrian used both forms. In Greek terminology they were
usually called "The Spearmen"' olt bopu(popot, a term which in Greek society
was associated with the escort of a dictator.
2. Alexander II and Perdiccas III probably and Philip II and Alexander III
certainly were attended by Personal Guardsmen, these being the tallest and
strongest Macedones, who from the accession of Philip II were expert in the
use of the pike (sarissa). In Macedonian terminology they were called "Pezhe-
tairoi" until some time after 349, when they became "The King's Own Soma-
tophylakes" oi OgaTOpvRAaKEg oi 3atXktKoi (e. g. Arr. 3.17.2) and for short
"The Somatophylakes". The Personal Guardsmen on duty were billeted in the
Palace and on campaign at Headquarters. The rest of the corps was billeted
nearby. On campaign the Personal Guardsmen served as an elite unit, led
sometimes by the king himself. In Macedonian terminology it was called "The
King's Own Guard" TO a?Lyal -6 pcaLctK6v (e. g. 5.13.4), or "The Guard of
the Makedones" T6 aIyrJCia T6v MaKFc66VWV (1.8.4), this term alluding to the
fact that its recruits were taken only from the area of the old kingdom. In
Greek terminology they were "The Spearmen" oi 8opu(p6pot.
3. Philip (and possibly his predecessors) and Alexander had highly-paid
and specially trained troops who were called in Macedonian and Greek
terminology "Hypaspists". One of the three brigades was called "The Guard
of the Hypaspists" r6d y T&V 01)aanta-o6v, and its members were called
"The King's Own Hypaspists" oi OrnaanLtaai oit aa3tktKoi. They were
recruited from the new kingdom, created by Philip II. They were billeted not
in the Palace or at Headquarters, but in a camp not far removed. The collecti-
ve name of the three brigades was oi ttnaanttoTai.
The last question which we must consider is the identity of "The Silvershiel-
ded" oi gpyopoitcs 56. I begin with the situation immediately after the
mutiny at Opis in 324. Alexander created then a number of Persian infantry
units parallel to those of the Macedonians (Arr. 7.11.3): an agema, pezhetairoi-
and-asthetairoi, and a brigade of Argyraspides (6pyupacnITnow av64t(). These
56 Various views have been expressed on this subject, of which I may mention Berve 1.128,
Tarn 2.116f. and 149f., Kienast 286, R. A. Lock in Historia 26 (1977) 373ff., and E. M. Anson
in
Historia 30 (1981) 117ff. The point should be made that Curtius 8.5.4 and Justin 12.7.5 were
writing of the whole army being decorated with gold and silver - an extravaganza due
probably
to Cleitarchus as their common source (see THA 104 and 147).
The various Guards 415
units, I take it, corresponded to the ag
gades, and the King's Own Guard. They appear again in a description of the
Headquarters of Alexander in the East (as compared with his Headquarters in
Macedonia and in Greece), which is found in Polyaenus 4.3.24, Athenae. 539
e-f and Ael. VH 9.3. 1 give a summary of the relevant parts, using the text of
Polyaenus. (1) The Somatophylakes stood "on either side of the king", as he
was judging a case. They were obviously his high-ranking Somatophylakes. (2)
500 Makedones Argyraspides (drawn from) the tallest men. (3) 1,000 Makedo-
nes wearing Macedonian uniform. Of the Persian units the corresponding
ones were as follows. (l) First of all (np6xot) 500 Apple-bearers in purple and
quince-yellow uniforms. (2) 500 Archers in various colours and 500 Sousians
clad in purple. (3) 10,000 Persians "the most beautiful and the tallest", most
handsomely equipped. The correspondence consists in two King's Own Gu-
ards, i. e. the Macedonian Argyraspides and the Persian Apple-bearers
(fighting alongside Darius at Gaugamela, Arr. 3.11.5); two elite groups, i. e.
1,000 King's Own Hypaspists and 500 Archers + 500 Sousians (fighting as
such at Gaugamela, Arr. 3.11.3); and 10,000 Persians and 10,000 Macedonians
(the latter not mentioned by Polyaenus), who were probably part of the 13,000
Macedonian infantrymen retained in Asia in 324 (Curt. 10.2.8).
We have mentioned already the King's Own Guard being with Alexander
in 326. He had crossed the Hydaspes with difficulty at night, his troops
arriving in batches by triaconter, and his cavalry disembarking first; and his
advance was delayed by landing on an island instead of on the farther bank.
Marshalling what troops he had - all the cavalry and most of the infantry (not
the two phalanx-brigades mentioned in Arr. 5.12.2)57 - he set out to meet any
Indian advance-force (5.13.4). He had of the infantry The King's Own Hypa-
spists, The King's Own Guard (-ca 6yjtcz -t6 f3acXtK6v), the rest of the
Hypaspists, the Archers, the Agrianians and the Javelin-men. The usual num-
bers in these units were, in the same order, 1,000, 500 (inferred from the 500
Macedones mentioned in the preceding paragraph), 2,000, 1,000, 1,000 and we
may guess 500, making a total of 6,000. The total as given by Arrian 5.14.1
"nearly 6,000" agrees with this58. Earlier in this year Alexander had visited Mt
57 These two brigades were among the infantrymen for whom Alexander waited at 5.16.1.
This
point seems not to have been appreciated by Brunt, L 2.40 n. 2 and n. 1, when he censured
Arrian for errors and imported 3,000 phalangites into Arrian's 6,000 infantry of Arr. 5.14.1.
Bosworth, Conquest and Empire 127 "no source suggests that there was any increment
before the
battle proper" overlooked the word "phalanx" in 5.16.2 and did not allow for the reader
assuming that Alexander's orders-in-advance to Meleager, Attalus and Gorgias at 5.12.1 were
in
fact carried out.
s8 This number is not corrupt; for it is repeated by Arrian at 5.17.3 of those involved in the first
attack, i. e. against the son of Porus (dad t6tKtLcaXLXkOV tv 1v tVT TpErrT tpoOjoXfi yEvo-
gttvwv). Arrian gave the losses of that original force and not of those who fought in the major
battle. Bosworth op. cit. n. 316 seems to confuse the two.
416 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND
Merus for the thrill of seeing where Dionysus had been (5.2.5). It was very
much a Macedonian occasion. Alexander took with him the Companion
Cavalry and "The Infantry Guard" (Tu IM&K6V 6yrta), which was probably
"The Guard of the Makedones".
The earliest appearance of the Argyraspides in the sources is in the battle-
orders at Gaugamela which were given by Diodorus and Curtius. As we shall
need to compare them I quote the two passages.
Diod. 17.57.1-2.
t&jg 6t T&X Xika; iERaLpXiaX LRT6L ThTaYRtVag OJ T6OV atvw56v 'Yyeto'-
Va. 6JtiYOCV & TOUTOV tCT6yYq T-O WTV eLpyUpa3tRi6&OV JtC6V Tctypt,
atL(ppOV T1 TC TIV 6Itk(OV X%t[p6TlTSl KW. T1 V &V6p&V LpCTI Kclt
toUT?ov fycTo NtK6vwp 6 HapREvkovog0. t%Op?VTV & tOOT(i)V ?GTlar
T-v 'Ektqiatv KaXOopLVWV aTpTaTlyiav, % Kotvog i'ycFTo.
Curt. 4.13.26 ceterosque praefectos equitum lateri eius59 applicuit. Ultima
Meleagri ala stabat, quam phalanx sequebatur. Post phalangem argyraspides
erant; his Nicanor, Parmenionis filius, praeerat. In subsidiis cum manu sua
Coenus.
Tarn maintained that Curtius merely copied Diodorus. But this is not so;
for Curtius added the cavalry squadron of Meleageri, and he placed the
Argyraspides "behind the phalanx", whereas Diodorus had them behind the
cavalry. It is clear, then, that Diodorus and Curtius used the same source -
whom I have identified with probability as Cleitarchus6' - but Curtius has
added or altered points from another source (or sources). It seems that some
confusion has arisen in both passages. Diodorus' description of "the brigade
of the Silver-shielded infantrymen") as "excelling in the valour of its men" was
appropriate to The King's Own Guard so named. Both Diodorus and Curtius
omitted altogether from their orders of battle the Hypaspists, who according
to Arr. 3.11.9 were commanded by Nicanor, son of Parmenion, at Gaugamela.
The best - but still hypothetical solution of the confusion - is that the
Hypaspists have been omitted by both Diodorus and Curtius, and therefore
probably by their common source, Cleitarchus, but Nicanor, son of Parmenio,
figured in their common source and kept a place62.
59 The back-reference, as in Diodorus, was to Philotas.
60 Arr. 3.11.8 had Meleager's squadron followed by Hegelochus' squadron.
61 THA 20-22,50 and 128.
62 Tarn 2.151 proclaimed that "the name Argyraspides" was not in use in Alexander's lifetime.
He therefore set out to get rid of all references to themn which referred to that time. His
method
was direct and simple. "In describing Alexander's battle-line at Gaugamela, both Diodorus and
Curtius use, for the hypaspists, the word Argyraspides" (116; cf. his comment on Arr. 7.11.3 at
152). He reckoned (152) that the name "has slipped in" from the history of Hieronymus (it
began
after Alexander's death and cannot have been a source here), and he felt justified in slipping it
out again. He did not refer to Polyaenus 4.3.24 and the parallel passages in this connection.
See
also Kienast 287, and R. A. Lock in Historia 26 (1977) 377, who share Tarn's view.
The various Guards 417
This hypothesis leads to another hypothesis. Curtius' phrase "post phalan-
gem" is at first sight puzzling63; but when we remember Curtius' emphasis on
a second line of troops behind the phalanx-line we can see that he and his
source (not Cleitarchus) placed the Argyraspides in the second line. The
reason for Alexander putting them there was no doubt to strengthen that
second line; but it appears that it may have been to cope with scythed chariots.
For Arrian reported at 3.13.6 that the chariots which broke through the
brigades of the phalanx (6tat TOv ta64wv), i. e. through the first line, were
overpowered by "the grooms of Alexander army and the King's Own Hypa-
spists". As Brunt, L 1.267 n. 5 remarked, this is "inexplicable, as (Arr. 3) 11.9
puts them in the front line". If this was "the brigade of the Silver-shielded
infantrymen", which Arrian never mentioned in action under that name, this
hypothesis makes the puzzle explicable'M.
Enough, however, of these hypotheses. Let us look finally at the later
history of the Argyraspides. When Alexander re-organised his Macedonian
troops after the mutiny at Opis and the sending home of some 10,000 Macedo-
nians, he had in round numbers 13,000 infantrymen in Babylonia (Curt.
10.2.8)65. Of these 3,000 became the Argyraspides, these being elite troops and
replacing both the King's Own Guard and the Hypaspists; some 3,000 were
"the descendants of the Hypaspists", being young men who had grown up in
the camp'; and some 7,000 other Macedonians, now deployed in the mixed
phalanx (Arr. 7.23.3). The Argyraspides were the elite force, composed of the
veterans who had served some of them even under Alexander II and Perdic-
cas III, and who were so experienced and so strong that they defeated the
younger Macedonian infantrymen in 317 and 316 (Diod. 19.30.5-6 and 43.1)67.
Antigonus Monophthalmus split the Argyraspides into smaller units and
posted them to remote areas where they met their end (Diod. 19.48.3 and Plu.
Eum. 19.2).
Clare College, Cambridge Nicholas G. L. Hammond
63 The latest study, by A. M. Devine in The Ancient World 13 (198
point.
64Tarn 2.150 thought that the Hypaspists of the front line we
Bosworth op. cit. 82 with n. 171 thought that it meant "men from
Hypaspists"; but they would have had to run some distance to catch
explanation has to assume that Arrian used an ambiguous term for
men.
65 These figures have been discussed by me in JHS 109 (1989) 64;
was probably Diyllus (see THA 158f.).
66 I commented on this term in CQ 28 (1978) 133 with n. 21.
67 See my article 'Alexander's Veterans after his death', GRBS25 (1984) 51f. and 60f.
418 NICHOLAS G. L. HAMMOND, The various Guards
The following special abbreviations are employed:
Arr. = Arrian, Anabasis.
Berve = H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich aufprosopographischer
Grundlage (Munich, 1926).
Bosworth, C A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian's
History of Alexander (Oxford, 1980).
Brunt, L = P. A. Brunt's edition of Arrian, Anabasis in the Loeb ed.
(London, 1976 and 1983).
Ellis = J. R. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London
1976).
HM = A History of Macedonia; Vol. 2 (Oxford, 1979) by N. G. L.
Hammond and G. T. Griffith.
Kienast D. Kienast, Philip II. von Macedonien und das Reich der
Achaimeniden (Munich, 1973).
Tam = W. W. Tam, Alexander the Great 2 (Cambridge, 1948 and
1979).
THA = 7hree Historians ofAlexander the Great: the socalled Vulgate
authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius (Cambridge, 1983).
TMS = N. G. L. Hammond, The Macedonian State (Oxford, 1989).
Vergina M. Andronicos, Vergina (Athens, 1984).