#hypaspists

[jeannereames]

Hi Professor! Thank you for answering my earlier question about Kleopatra in your books. I have a more history-related question this time: what did a somatophylake actually do? I realized that Alexander’s 7-8 bodyguards were also pretty high ranking generals in their own right who presumably had other work to do… so what would their day to day look like? Do we know if there was a schedule? Was the actual guarding more informal than it sounds? What happened when someone was away?

Somatophylax: Glorified Go-fer or Macedonian Secret Service?

Excellent question, and the short answer is: we aren’t entirely sure what they did.

Also—complicating it further—what they did seems to have changed over time, and from king to king. Especially under Philip and Alexander.

First, some quick terminology for folks:

Somatophylax (sing.)/Somatophylakes (pl.), capped, refers to the 7-man “unit” called the Bodyguard. Which is literally what the word means: bodyguard.

Hypaspists (Hypaspistoi), especially the agema (royal) unit, were also sometimes referred to as the king’s “bodyguard” (somatophylakes, lower case) in combat. (sing. Hypaspistos = “shield bearer”)

The Hypaspists fought together as a unit. The 7-man Somatophylakes did not.

Hetairos (sing.)/Hetairoi (pl.) were the land-owning aristocracy, “companions” (literal meaning) to the king in fighting, hunting, and drinking. They were advisors, and sometimes adversaries. They couldn’t be kings (not Argeads), but were king-makers.

Philoi: Friends (literal), the king’s (informal) inner circle of Hetairoi.

Today, I can use caps versus lower-case/italics to distinguish between a Somatophylax and a somatophylax. But in ancient Greek, that’s impossible because they wrote entirely in what we’d call capital letters. There was no “lower case” until Byzantine authors invented it later. They also didn’t employ (much) punctuation. To make matters worse, our surviving later authors (none of whom lived during Alexander’s age) don’t preserve regularized terms. Arrian might be closest. Moreover, some, like Curtius and Justin, wrote in Latin, not Greek, so they translate the military terminology, and not consistently.

This is why you may see arguments about what the ancient sources actually meant; a great deal of ink has been spilt on military terminology by colleagues such as Waldemar Heckel and Graham Wrightson. But there are a whole bunch of military historians who deal more with these issues than I do. (For the record, I’m a prosopographer and court historian more than military historian—except where those two things overlap, which is not infrequently. So I’m familiar with the issues.) IMO, a Somatophylax is as much a court position as anything military. This is different from the Hypaspists, who are military-battle focused.

What We Do Know

First, I am deliberately not revealing everything I “know,” because some of it I’m working on for the monograph and it’s not been published yet.

Somatophylakes were noble-born Hetairoi, and at least several came of princely houses, not always Macedonian. Philip may have appointed an Epirote royal (Arybbas). Of Alexander’s, Leonnatos was of the royal house of Lynkestis and Perdikkas seems to have come from the royal house of Orestis, maybe even the/a “prince.”

They guarded the inner chamber of the king while he slept. (The Basilikoi Paides, or King’s Boys [Royal Pages] guarded the outer chamber/tent.)

The Macedonian version may owe to Achaemenid Persian influence and its institution as a formal office may date to the reign of Alexander I or his son Perdikkas II. (I'd bet it does.)

In short, this appears to be as much an honorary/quasi-political rank as a functional one. They don't appear to have had any formal training as a bodyguard.

For this reason, it seems that a new king inherited the Seven his predecessor ended with. Or at least, Alexander couldn’t just boot Philip’s Seven when he took the throne. Demetrios, the Somatophylax who was part of the Dimnos Conspiracy, which brought down Philotas and his family, almost certainly was not installed by Alexander. Anger at Alexander’s 330 reforms may have caused him to “snap” and want to replace “his” king’s successor. Ptolemy was elevated to his place after the trial. So, seven years into his campaign, Alexander still seems to have had at least one Somatophylax from Philip, and probably more than that. It’s after this point that he added Hephaistion.

A number of scholars put Hephaistion as Alexander’s first appointment from his personal circle, but he’s listed separately from the Somatophylakes during the Philotas Affair, which occurred in late 330. After Demetrios’s execution, as noted, Ptolemy replaced him. We know only that Hephaistion was a Somatophylax by the 324 appointment of Peukestas. (I argue this in my paper “The Cult of Hephaistion,” btw.)

That gives some tantalizing hints about the “protocol” behind the king’s appointments, but it’s hard to detangle what these actually were unless we knew more for certain about the families of Alexander’s choices—especially the earlier ones. It seems to me that both age and family status had as much to do with it as closeness to the king, which—if indeed they are as much an honorary position as a functional one—should come as no surprise.

What We Don’t Know

Pretty much anything else. Including the details of when and how they served: in some form of rotation(?) and, other than night guard, what they did while on duty.

That said, they do seem to have been in charge of supervising access to the king, at least somewhat. Macedonians expected some level of free approach, but it would have been curated. Random citizen-subjects couldn’t wander into his private office. The Somatophylakes were apparently the last line of defense for the king’s privacy, as well as person. But as we saw with Demetrios, the king might not be able to trust all of them absolutely.

We don’t even know the reason for the odd (not even) number, other than seven having symbolic significance in many societies. In Susa, Alexander promoted Peukestas to the corps as an “extraordinary” eighth. This seems to have lasted until Hephaistion died. There’s no mention that Hephaistion was replaced, so it probably returned to seven. (Alexander had had eight only a year.)

I have jokingly referred to them as the King’s Go-fers, but only in terms of their duties apparently being somewhat eclectic, not in terms of status. Waldemar Heckel places it as (an) endpoint of the Macedonian “cursus honorum” (race of [social] honor).

Any list of (Alexander’s) Bodyguards on the internet is highly problematic in terms of when they became Bodyguards (all place Hephaistion too early, for instance). But for every other Argead king, even Philip, we have an even more incomplete list. At least we can name Alexander’s, even if their year (or even order) of appointment is unclear.

As noted, I am working on a few additional ideas as part of the Hephaistion-Krateros monograph, but they don’t expand that much, tbh. Just more speculative details.

[jeannereames]

Hello Professor! My native language is not English, so please forgive me if I express myself inappropriately! First of all, I want to say that I really like your works. Secondly, in the past few days, I talked with my friends about Alexander and Hephaestion. They said that after Hephaestion was injured in the Battle of Gaugamela, Alexander was afraid that he would die in battle, so he seldom arranged for him to charge ahead. My friends took the Battle of the Hydaspes as an example and based on Arrian's account, they said that among the senior officers who boarded the ship with Alexander and landed, there was no Hephaestion, although Alexander brought him to the small island in the river. But I don't agree with their view because I found that some modern scholars clearly wrote that Hephaestion participated in this battle against Porus. But I don't know which ancient writer's historical records the modern scholars referred to. Due to the limitations of the materials, I can only access the works of three ancient writers, Plutarchus, Diodorus, and Arrian, but none of them clearly recorded Hephaestion's role in this battle. So could you please tell me which ancient writer clearly recorded that Alexander brought Hephaestion and Perdiccas to attack the enemy's flank? And do you think that in history Alexander would really let Hephaestion manage logistics more in order to protect him?

Hephaistion in Combat

I have argued, in the past, that Alexander kept Hephaistion away from combat command largely because such doesn’t appear to have been his strength as a leader. Some have mistaken this for my saying that he kept him away from combat (he didn’t), or that Hephaistion wasn’t a good fighter (actually, he probably was). In addition, I’ve changed my mind a bit on this. (Btw, I’m not assuming the anon’s friends based their opinions on my papers—or even read my papers, assuming they read English. I’m speaking in general.)

But before I address the Hydaspes, let’s talk about the big honkin’ problem with this proposal in general: it treats Hephaistion like a woman, and would have destroyed his timē (personal honor and public standing), making it impossible for anybody to take him seriously as chiliarch.

Remember, the most famous fighting forces in Greece, both Sparta and the Sacred Band of Thebes, used love and devotion as a motivator to bravery. Plato also philosophizes about it. This is how ancient Greek men constructed even romantic ties between themselves. WOMEN need protecting. Men do not. Men protect each other. I deal with this in a couple places in Rise.

In “The Cult of Hephaistion,” I discuss his career and appointments. Again, in the monograph, I will alter some of the conclusions I drew in that paper (as one does after 15+ years and a re-examination of the evidence), but the fundamentals stay the same. Hephaistion’s primary gift, and role, at Alexander’s court was logistical and diplomatic. BUT that does not mean he never commanded troops in combat. He just didn’t do so with any regularity, unlike some of his contemporaries. If combat command wasn’t his jam, he was competent at it. What he apparently excelled at, however, was organization, whether for large groups of people (like an army on the move), or for securing and delivering needed goods and services (like food and water for an army), or building required structures (like bridges or cities). He also may have had some diplomatic-political assignments. Thus, Alexander employed him most often for what he was best at.

None of that means he couldn’t fight. At Gaugamela (where he was injured), he apparently led the agema (royal squad) of the Hypaspists (also called the Bodyguard when in combat situations, hence Diodoros’s confusion of terms). That meant he was in the brutal thick of it as Arrian tells us the king’s cavalry agema (and his bodyguard, e.g., Hephaistion’s unit) hit some fleeing troops after the Persian line collapsed, and this resulted in the worst knot of fighting in the entire battle where the most Companions fell, as Persians were desperate to get away.

We know that when Philip created this special unit (first called the Pezhetairoi and later the Hypaspists, then later yet, the Silver Shields [Argyraspides]), they were recruited for their size, not formed by canton. The royal unit (agema) fought around the king (originally Philip, who fought on foot): hence their combat name as Bodyguard, which is what Hypaspist means: “Shield bearer,” the traditional guard of a nobleman. You don’t put people in that unit (whatever their status or birth) who can’t fight, never mind appoint them to lead the unit. But what that unit does NOT do is decide overall battle strategy, nor command whole sections of troops on the field—hold them together and keep them alive.

In military societies such as Macedon, a respected commander must also be a good fighter. But the reverse is not necessarily true: the best fighters may not be the best commanders. The focus on fighting skill occludes a person’s ability at overall combat command. Again, I deal with this in both Becoming and Rise: where I make Hephaistion a very fine fighter in hand-to-hand. So, if the most respected commanders are typically good fighters too, the best fighters are usually not also top-notch combat commanders. These are two different skills.

So yes, actually I do think Hephaistion was not only fine as a warrior, I think he was probably on the very good side.

But he was better at organization…and that is how Alexander used him.

Now, as for the very specific question about his role in the Battle of the Hydaspes, we have two reports, and a third (related). Justin is far too abbreviated, and Plutarch says nothing useful (for the most part) about military matters.

Both Curtius (8.14.15) and Arrian (5.12.2, 5.13.4) give Hephaistion’s placement. Curtius puts his hipparchy, and Ptolemy’s and Perdikkas’s infantry battalions under Alexander’s direct command. Arrian gives Perdikkas’s battalion and Demetrios’s and Hephaistion’s hipparchies under Alexander’s direct command. I’m not sure why the difference, but I’m rather more inclined to trust Arrian on such details. Furthermore, at 5.14.4, Arrian gives the full line placements.

It was not normal for these sources to offer a lot of individual detail as to where people are at all times. We’re lucky if we’re given any detail at all (and Arrian is typically the one to do it). So, if he says Hephaistion (and others) are with Alexander at X point, that’s where they are for the rest of the battle (unless we’re told otherwise). This is just how our ancient sources work. To argue, “Well, they said he was here, but then don’t mention him again here” is meaningless, unless we would expect him to be mentioned later…and we wouldn’t. It’s important to understand how the ancient sources record things—and what they don’t bother to tell us. We might care. They don’t.

I’ve found that many modern readers assume a level of detail and bureaucracy that was simply foreign to the ancient mindset. This was, at best, a semi-literate culture. They just didn’t write down things like that…much less in triplicate and file it all. Ha. As time went on, documentation got better, but it was never anything like what one would expect today. Even 100 years ago, documentation was often voluntary, and therefore iffy.

But. But. But…wouldn’t people lie? You bet your sweet patootie. And it was harder to prove. Welcome to ancient history. 😊 But sometimes people just misremembered details. That’s no doubt why we get conflicting reports in Arrian and Curtius about which divisions were under Alexander at the Hydaspes.

Now, while Diodoros doesn’t give as much battle detail (he’s a shorter source), he does tell us (17.91.1-2) that after the battle, Alexander sent Hephaistion off to take the territory of the “unfriendly” Porus and give it to the (now) “friendly” Porus, which Hephaistion successfully did. Upon his return, Alexander commended him for his bravery: tais andragathias epeinesen (17.93.1). One doesn’t say that about somebody who just went out for some organizational rearranging. Hephaistion and his troops fought. He was in command. Alone. (So yes, this contradicts some of my earlier claims and is an example of where I’ve changed my mind on some matters.)

What we see, beginning in Baktria but really picking up steam in India, is Hephaistion’s rise as an independent commander of large chunks of the army. Krateros is the other one. That means Hephaistion is at least sometimes in overall command in combat situations. This often occurs when Krateros, or one of the other Big Dogs (such as Perdikkas), are already on assignment. But it may also involve cases where some organizational and dipolomatic talent would be required: as in the matter of transferring a region from one raj to another. We also see Krateros (and Perdikkas, et al.) performing similar administrative roles, and/or in command of foraging units. So that wasn’t always Hephaistion, either.

Commanders in the ancient world tended to wear more hats than they do today. And we’re not always (or even often) told why one person is assigned here and another there. It could be simple availability, or luck of the draw, or an honor(favor) owed, or there may have been particular reasons that have been lost to time. Ergo, I try to look at trends, rather than absolutes. And the trend was for Hephaistion to be often (but not exclusively) assigned to logistical and/or diplomatic roles.

That is FAR, far from keeping him out of any dangerous situation. He was right in the middle of all the elbowing for prominence among marshals at the court. After all, at his rank, a man is more likely to die of a knife in the back than a spear to the front.

[jeannereames]

I forgot who it was, but I always found it so curious that it was recorded that Hephaistion was “wounded in the arm” during one of the battles. I know only the important things tended to be recorded, and of course, war and injury go hand-in-hand. I’m guessing that was pointed out because it was a really, really bad injury. Right? Not sure how that mention would’ve been relevant otherwise.

Hephaistion's Injury at Gaugamela

Arrian recorded Hephaistion’s injury.

In general, Arrian records a lot of military details that the other sources ignore or lack an interest in. Even so, with rare exceptions, his focus remains the army elite. And yes, Hephaistion is certainly among the elite, both owing to his importance to Alexander, but also, here, his role in the battle.

Diodoros tells us he fought first among the somatophylakes, or bodyguard. This has sometimes been misunderstood due to Diodoros’s tendency to mix-and-match terms. Diodoros doesn’t mean the 7-man unit of Somatophylakes, who didn’t fight together anyway. Their role as bodyguards was OFF the field. And I don’t think Hephaistion was a member of that unit yet anyway.

So what does he mean? The agema, or Royal squadron, of the Hypaspists. There were “regular” Hypaspists, and “royal” Hypaspists. Under Philip, this unit (then called Pezhetairoi) was the personal guard of the king in combat. When the unit itself came to be is a more involved discussion, but Philip made a significant change: he picked men for their size and fighting skill, not their high birth. Yet that was for the “regular” Hypaspists only, and it became one of the first pathways to advancement on skill alone in the Macedonian army. The royal unit, however, was another matter. Both Philip and Alexander made their military changes gradually.

Even under Philip, the Hypaspists were a stepping stone to higher commands for the sons of Hetairoi (Macedonian aristocrats). The whole unit was under the command of Nikanor, son of Parmenion. It was second only to the Companion Cavalry in prestige (which was commanded by Nikanor’s elder brother Philotas).

Yet overall command was different from unit command. E.g., Philotas commanded the Companions as a whole, but Kleitos Melas (Black Kleitos) commanded the Companion agema (royal unit) of Companion Cavalry. The king might lead that unit in battle, but he didn’t have time for the day-to-day duties of unit command, so Kleitos was their commander.

Similarly, by Gaugamela, Hephaistion had been advanced to command the Hypaspist agema. This may be why, later, Alexander advanced both him and Kleitos to joint command of the Companion Cavalry, after Philotas’s arrest and execution. Each had commanded the two most prestigious individual units in the army.

If Heckel is right (and I think he is), the Hypaspist agema at Gaugamela served as hammippoi, an elite form of hoplite who, literally, ran with the cavalry. (Keep in mind the horses would be mostly trotting or cantering, not galloping for long.) The job of the hammippoi was to help protect the horses and any cavalryman who was unhorsed, as the cavalry were much more lightly armed. But it’s a demanding job, to be sure.

At Gaugamela, Arrian tells us specifically of an encounter as Alexander returned with his Companion agema, after breaking off pursuit of Darius. They accidentally collided with some fleeing Persians and Indians (et al.), and it became the hardest fighting in the entire battle, as the fleeing men were desperate. I suspect this is where Hephaistion was wounded, as we’re told something like 60 Companions died in that engagement alone. It was brutal.

All that may help contextualize why Arrian names Hephaistion’s wounding. along with a couple others. He was the commander of a very important unit in the army.

[jeannereames]

Was likely that Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship was a Kathryn Howard/Henry VIII situation, with Hephaistion coerced by his family to become Alexander's confidant/best friend/lover. If he was forced into the relationship, do you think he eventually fell in love with Alexander, or stayed with him for power or because he was too scared to say no? The letter referenced by Aelian implies Hephaistion's considerable sexual influence; although Aelian isn't very reliable, do you think it likely?

Let me explain a little about the Macedonian court to explain why the above is unlikely.

Most folks are familiar with the institution of the Royal Pages, or “King’s Boys” (Basiliskoi Paides). Following NGL Hammond, these boys were c. 14-18. (Although if they had a strict age threshold, it’s hard to say; I suspect Hammond may have been unduly influenced by the Athenian institution of the ephebic military service, which was set at 18 to enter.)

Anyway, in addition to the Royal Pages, we also have a unit called the “Hunters” (Kynegoi), associated with Herakles. What they did is unclear, but seems to have been for boys about 18+, again, upper-class (Hetairoi). Various suppositions have been supplied, but I like Hatzopoulos’s (if I remember right) that they may have functioned rather like a “police force” outside Pella in the countryside of the lowlands, as officer-training. It makes a certain amount of sense, as it would be good experience for young men to learn to think on their own in dangerous situations. It seems like a logical extension of the Royal Pages. Alternatively (or perhaps in addition, as the Kynegoi were not—it seems—a military unit) boys exiting the Pages entered the Pezhetairoi (under Philip) or the Hypaspists (under Alexander): a specialist unit with picked men, especially those “bigger” than average (taller, more bulky). Hephaistion appears to have gone into that unit at some point.

Now, as you can imagine, the competition and back-biting would have been ENORMOUS in either group, to get the attention of the king. But throw the prince into the mix, and it was more so.

In addition to the King’s Boys, royal princes appear to have had a group of young men semi-assigned to them by the king: the syntrophoi. These are picked contemporaries, almost certainly most from the Hetairois class, who were “raised” and educated with him. Meant to be his playmates…and eventually his high-ranking officers. It’s what Curtius refers to when he says Hephaistion was “raised and educated” together with Alexander. He was one of the syntrophoi. Each prince had his own set. We don’t know how many they numbered (probably varied), but IF the gymnasion recently discovered near/at Mieza is any indicator, a prince (especially the one designated as heir) might have as many syntrophoi as the king had Hetairoi: a hundred or so.

(In Dancing with the Lion, I didn’t want to juggle that many boys, but also, I wrote the book before that ginormous gymnasion was found. So while I did have a gymnasion there, it wasn’t anywhere near so large. I’d have reduced the number of boys anyway. There are enough unfamiliar names floating around as it is!)

So I wanted to explain how the court worked, in order to understand how Hephaistion would have entered into Alexander’s personal circle. What his roles might have been.

As a syntrophos of Alexander, Hephaistion’s parents may well have encouraged him to seek royal attention and approval, as that would reflect well on their family. But he wasn’t “chosen” to be Alexander’s best friend. He would have had to fight and elbow his way into that position. Competition was standard for Greek (and Macedonian) culture. Something about Hephaistion attracted Alexander. I doubt it was anything purely sexual. Hephaistion’s isolation at the court, if he was, indeed, of Attic or Ionian extraction, may have made him valuable because he didn’t have lots of family to divide his loyalties (from Alexander). But I’m sure it was more than that.

It’s okay if they just, you know, liked each other. 😊 Not everything is transactional.

We know that Alexander considered him very dear, and seems to have for a while. Sabine Muller and I disagree over when Hephaistion joined Alexander’s court, but even if we follow Sabine’s timeline,* which makes him an adult, not a boy or teen, he appears to have become important to Alexander fairly early.

We don’t know how Hephaistion felt, except by extrapolation. I tend to believe the affection was mutual, not one-sided or opportunistic from Hephaistion. Here’s why:

1) Alexander was a smart guy, and a prince from day one. He would’ve learned to smell sycophancy in childhood. It’s a survival tactic. No matter how good of an actor Hephaistion may have been, long-term, an act would have worn thin. In fact, I think Hephaistion’s importance to Alexander was precisely because it was genuine. Alexander got lucky and found a true best friend—a rare thing for kings.

2) As for why they got along… IME, smart people in positions of authority (who are not narcissistic**) may put up with and find use for yes-men/women for a while, especially in “underling” positions. But they grow tired of them long-term. Hephaistion and Alexander were close for years. And, if I’m right and they’d met by Mieza (if not before), they were friends, even best friends,*** for 19 years. That’s longer than most modern marriages.

Therefore, I’ve always seen Hephaistion as someone uniquely able to keep up with Alexander, and who was honest with him (something Curtius asserts). In short, Alexander not only found that rare thing—a true best friend—he found one smart enough to match him, but who didn’t elicit a response from his over-developed “competition” gene.

As I’ve said before, all of that is why I find their story so compelling. In a competitive, calculating world, it seems refreshingly real.

---------------

*“Hephaistion,” Lexicon of Argead Macedonia, Heckel, Heinrichs, Muller, Pownall, Frank and Timme, 2020.

**Alexander was not a narcissist. I’ve seen him accused of it, especially lately with Trump as a model, but narcissists are rarely so successful (their own delusions prevent it), and he just doesn’t tick enough DSM diagnostic boxes, for me.

***Remember that, for the Greeks, philos was a higher position than erastes or eromenos.