C2nd BC Seleukid

[RichT]

But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.

That ("they act as a unit") is simply not true.

any idea that they were 'non-military' is a non-starter

And that displays a total lack of understanding of the subject.

More reading, less talking, please.

[Jim Webster]

Dionysios (XIX.12.3) describes Oblakos charging "the royal squadron", "ten basiliken ile". Plutarch has Pyrrhos rescued by his "philoi", but Dionysios by the most faithful of his bodyguards, "somatophylakes".

"his close Companions, the philoi" seems to me to be extrapolating further than the terminology of the sources permits.

But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.  That they appear interchangeable with somatophylakes within a generation of Alexander's death should not be surprising.

In any event, it is up to you how you interpret it, though for some reason Perikles seems independently to have arrived at the same understanding as myself.

Burstein's definition, as linked by Jim, points out:

"Such 'friends' were the king's closest associates in peace and war," which means they were with him on campaign and on the battlefield, so any idea that they were 'non-military' is a non-starter.  Of course, they were not exclusively military, being in addition a pool for governors and advisors and generally trustworthy/favoured company, but we note the king "appointed whomever he felt qualified to the position of 'friend'," so there was no fixed size for such a contingent, and while Antiochus III seems to have been content with 500, Antiochus IV fielded 1,000 - as a unit among the rest of his elite cavalry.

I think you have made several jumps too far on the evidence Patrick
The friends were the king's closest associates in peace on war, but it doesn't mean they were with him on campaign or the battlefield. They might be sent off to act as ambassadors (Hellenistic Kings needed a lot of ambassadors, not just to foreign states but to cities within their own Empires), they could also get jobs as tax collectors, governors, and also investigating the honesty of tax collectors and governors. They might be present on the battlefield, perhaps as unit commanders, or 'subgenerals'. A handful of the younger and more muscular might even ride with him and his bodyguards. There (because they'd be known and to an extent recognised) they'd be able to act as trusted messengers, trouble shooters, or even be seconded to units to replace wounded or dead senior officers. To have them merely act as a cavalry unit would be an awfully expensive waste of resources. Cavalry were considerably cheaper to support than these Friends who are best considered as courtiers. When you look at the estates we have recorded as being awarded to some friends (just from epigraphic evidence,) some of the friends would have the economic resources to support considerable households of their own.
Also Antiochus IV didn't field 1000. A thousand joined in a parade which had elements that were military as well as religious. There is no evidence at all that this unit of friends ever took part in a military operation as a unit.

[nikgaukroger]

More reading, less talking, please.

On which note, thanks to Jim and Duncan for the links they have provided 

[RichT]

And two more works:

Rolf Strootman, Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires (2014)
John Grainger, Kings and Kingship in the Hellenistic World 350 - 30 BC (2017)

The first is much the same as the article Duncan linked to. Both are extensively previewed on Google Books and Amazon for those who don't like buying things (or don't have access to a library).

[nikgaukroger]

Cheers 

[Patrick Waterson]

But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.

That ("they act as a unit") is simply not true.

Then Plutarch is lying in Life of Pyrrhus 16.10?

any idea that they were 'non-military' is a non-starter

And that displays a total lack of understanding of the subject.

In fact, it displays an understanding of the culture.  I think people tend to miss the seamless Hellenistic integration between what we today would consider 'court', 'civil' and 'military' matters.

I think you have made several jumps too far on the evidence Patrick
The friends were the king's closest associates in peace on war, but it doesn't mean they were with him on campaign or the battlefield.

Well, they were at Heraclea, where:

Purron hoi philoi periskhontes anērpasan (Pyrrhus was rescued - literally snatched up and escorted away - by his philoi.)

They might be sent off to act as ambassadors (Hellenistic Kings needed a lot of ambassadors, not just to foreign states but to cities within their own Empires), they could also get jobs as tax collectors, governors, and also investigating the honesty of tax collectors and governors. They might be present on the battlefield, perhaps as unit commanders, or 'subgenerals'. A handful of the younger and more muscular might even ride with him and his bodyguards. There (because they'd be known and to an extent recognised) they'd be able to act as trusted messengers, trouble shooters, or even be seconded to units to replace wounded or dead senior officers. To have them merely act as a cavalry unit would be an awfully expensive waste of resources. Cavalry were considerably cheaper to support than these Friends who are best considered as courtiers. When you look at the estates we have recorded as being awarded to some friends (just from epigraphic evidence,) some of the friends would have the economic resources to support considerable households of their own.

They did all of these things, certainly, and in addition they also accompanied the king onto the battlefield.  It looks as if they also stuck with him in adversity when everyone else had dropped away.

Also Antiochus IV didn't field 1000. A thousand joined in a parade which had elements that were military as well as religious. There is no evidence at all that this unit of friends ever took part in a military operation as a unit.

But given the incompleteness of our records, is this even an argument: after all, do we have any direct attestation of his Companions (or Agema) taking part in a military operation as a unit?  Or even his Romanised infantry?  There were 1,000 philoi in the parade at Daphnae, among the elite cavalry.  Had they been among the dancers, we might well conclude their appearance and function was non-military, but from their actual position one would infer the opposite.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm regretting asking the original question   

[Jim Webster]

But the context would seem to leave no room for doubt: the philoi are there on the battlefield, they act as a unit and are in direct proximity to the king.

That ("they act as a unit") is simply not true.

Then Plutarch is lying in Life of Pyrrhus 16.10?

no
To quote one Patrick Waterson   "which would seem to identify the philoi as a subset of the Companions"

A subset of a cavalry unit is not the cavalry unit. A handful of bodyguards, ADCs, close friends and useful men to have about are not a regiment. Plutarch is not lying

He said, and here again I quote you, ""Oplacus suddenly rushed with his horsemen against Pyrrhus and his close Companions, the philoi ..."

Somebody can be your companion without having to join a regiment of that name. The philoi had won the right of access to the King. They were, quite literally, his companions. But some of the philoi would be governors, some would act as tutors and mentors to Royal Pages. The philoi aspired to vastly greater things than being cavalry troopers, no matter how exalted the regiment.

[Jim Webster]

But given the incompleteness of our records, is this even an argument: after all, do we have any direct attestation of his Companions (or Agema) taking part in a military operation as a unit?  Or even his Romanised infantry?  There were 1,000 philoi in the parade at Daphnae, among the elite cavalry.  Had they been among the dancers, we might well conclude their appearance and function was non-military, but from their actual position one would infer the opposite.

well Maccabees mentions Romanised Infantry

You seem determined to turn a collection of late middle aged ambassadors, senior administrators, top level advisors and suchlike, into the most expensive and least effective cavalry unit the ancient world has ever known. Have you actually bothered to read any of the various papers suggested about what the 'friends' or philoi actually were?

They turned up at a parade wearing armour? So what, Half of Elizabeth 1st's court turned up in full plate on armoured horses for the Armada musters. They then went off and did their proper jobs as Lord Lieutenants and suchlike, and had the Spanish landed they might even have fought wearing the armour, but at the head of their personal retainers, or the county regiments that they had raised.

[Patrick Waterson]

To quote one Patrick Waterson   "which would seem to identify the philoi as a subset of the Companions"

A subset of a cavalry unit is not the cavalry unit. A handful of bodyguards, ADCs, close friends and useful men to have about are not a regiment.

The question (now that we have established the philoi's presence on the battlefield) is whether they act as a unit on the battlefield or are just scattered among the Companions.

Plutarch is quite explicit: Pyrrhus was rescued by his philoi.  If they were just part of the Companions without their own distinctive unit grouping, why does Plutarch not write that Pyrrhus was rescued by his Companions?  His actual rescuers act in the coordinated fashion one would expect from a unit, one picking him up and the others forming a protective ring around him.

For that matter, why does Plutarch not write:

"Oplacus suddenly rushed with his horsemen against Pyrrhus and his Companions ..."

instead of:

"Oplacus suddenly rushed with his horsemen against Pyrrhus and his close Companions, the philoi ..."

His actual usage makes sense if the philoi were a unit unto themselves.

We may remember Alexander had his ile basilike.  I would see this unit, which contained the somatophylakoi, as being the forerunner of the philoi, especially as its members were often used in much the same manner as the later philoi (e.g. Hephaestion being sent to choose a king for Sidon).

Somebody can be your companion without having to join a regiment of that name. The philoi had won the right of access to the King. They were, quite literally, his companions. But some of the philoi would be governors, some would act as tutors and mentors to Royal Pages. The philoi aspired to vastly greater things than being cavalry troopers, no matter how exalted the regiment.

All this is true, but they also seem to have served on the battlefield as cavalry, which is entirely consistent with Antiochus III's royal 'cohort' and Antiochus IV parading his philoi as a separate and distinct unit at Daphnae (as opposed to a 'subset of the Companions').

I would expect that over time the Seleucids would have expanded the number of their Philoi, especially as this would allow them to put the heir in the field with the Companions to look after him (an apparently Macedonian arrangement Philip II seems to have used at Chaeronea, for example) and still have an utterly reliable unit to watch the King's back on the battlefield.

[Jim Webster]

To quote one Patrick Waterson   "which would seem to identify the philoi as a subset of the Companions"

A subset of a cavalry unit is not the cavalry unit. A handful of bodyguards, ADCs, close friends and useful men to have about are not a regiment.

The question (now that we have established the philoi's presence on the battlefield) is whether they act as a unit on the battlefield or are just scattered among the Companions.

Plutarch is quite explicit: Pyrrhus was rescued by his philoi.  If they were just part of the Companions without their own distinctive unit grouping, why does Plutarch not write that Pyrrhus was rescued by his Companions?  His actual rescuers act in the coordinated fashion one would expect from a unit, one picking him up and the others forming a protective ring around him.

Patrick, I refuse point blank to waste any more time in this rather fatuous discussion. Please read some of the discussions on philoi that have been referenced. There is no evidence that the Kings friends served as a cavalry unit on any field of battle. A handful of them were close to a king and being sensible, supported him and helped him. So What?
Yes the Kings friends appeared on the battlefield, nobody has ever doubted it. One of the Antiochus III's philoi was Epigenes who was used as a general by both Antiochus and Seleucus III. Molon seems to have been a philoi of seleucus III and was appointed as governor of Media
Had Epigenes happened to have been riding with Antiochus III when the latter was attacked, then Epigenes and anybody else near by would have rushed to defend him. 

In Ilium there as an inscription in favour of Antiochus I
(This is from The Land of he elephant Kings' by Paul J Kosmin)

"and having not only his Friends and the forces as his supporters in contending for the state, but having also the divine as his well-disposed helper, he restored the cities to peace and the kingdom to its previous condition."

[edited to add that Kosmin comments that this wording appears in a number of other places, and is therefore in all probability a Seleucid formula, not something Ilium dreamed up on their own]

Here we see the Friends and the army being considered totally separate entities, just as the divine mentioned later in the same section is a totally separate entity.
If you want to persist in believing that the Royal friends were just another cavalry unit into which Seleucid monarchs drafted ambassadors, provincial governors, auditors and senior advisers to they could have them thinned out in combat, then you carry on believing it, because frankly there's a limit to the amount of spitting into the wind I want to do.

[nikgaukroger]

Blimey. Having been on mailing lists, etc. with Jim for the best part of **way too many years** I don't think I've ever seen him post something so irate - even in some of the Dark Times (tm) on Ancmed, DBMlist, DBMMlist and the like. 

[Patrick Waterson]

Blimey. Having been on mailing lists, etc. with Jim for the best part of **way too many years** I don't think I've ever seen him post something so irate - even in some of the Dark Times (tm) on Ancmed, DBMlist, DBMMlist and the like. 

Oh, I have.  It is generally a sign that the interlocutor (usually me) has strained Jim's weltanschaung a bit too far.  That said, when Jim stops arguing with one it can be considered something of a compliment ...

Regarding this particular subject, it does seem that progress is not going to occur.  Ergo, as it is your Seleucid army, Nik, and you have already made up your mind what goes into it, we can call a close to this discussion.