Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:28:38.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ACHAEMENID ELITE CAVALRY: FROM XERXES TO DARIUS III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2015

Michael B. Charles
Michael B. Charles*
Affiliation:
Southern Cross University, Australia
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A proper understanding of any military establishment is predicated on a sound understanding of the distinctions of its various components, including the relationship of elite units to those of lesser standing. The infantry of Achaemenid Persia has been given increased attention in recent years, especially in my three recent articles on (a) the permanent Achaemenid infantry, these being the 10,000 so-called Immortals (ἀθάνατοι) and the 1,000 Apple Bearers (μηλοφόροι), (b) the κάρδακες, whom I identified as a kind of general-purpose infantry of indeterminate ethnicity, and (c) the defensive equipment of Achaemenid infantry. In these articles, the Persian cavalry, or asabāra in Old Persian, was mentioned in passing, yet a thorough appraisal of elite Achaemenid cavalry is still required. For example, in his overview of Xerxes' army, Barkworth pays particular attention to the elite infantry, but the cavalry is mentioned only in passing, while Shabazi, in his entry on the Achaemenid army or spāda, does not mention elite cavalry at all. In a recent important study, Tuplin looked carefully at the evidence for Achaemenid cavalry and the degree of importance attached to cavalry among the Persians, but only mentioned what might be termed elite cavalry twice – he did not offer any in-depth commentary on their relationship to other cavalry units.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 14 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Charles, M.B., ‘Immortals and Apple Bearers: towards a better understanding of Achaemenid infantry units’, CQ 61 (2011), 114–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘The Persian Κάρδακες’, JHS 132 (2012), 7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘Herodotus, body armour and Achaemenid infantry’, Historia 61 (2012), 257–69Google Scholar. Abbreviations follow the ‘Liste des périodiques’ in L'Année philologique. Other abbreviations are as per LSJ and the OLD. All translations are my own. I would like to thank CQ's anonymous referee as well as Dr Philip Rance for making insightful comments that have undoubtedly benefited this work.

2 Barkworth, P., ‘The organisation of Xerxes' army’, IA 27 (1992), 149–67Google Scholar, especially 153–5, likewise Obst, E., Der Feldzug des Xerxes (Leipzig, 1914), 89–90Google Scholar; Shabazi, A.S., ‘Army I. Pre-Islamic Iran’, in Yarshater, E. (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 2 (London and Boston, 2000), 489–99Google Scholar.

3 Tuplin, C.J., ‘All the king's horse: in search of Achaemenid Persian cavalry’, in Trundle, M. and Fagan, G. (edd.), New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare (Leiden, 2010), 100–82Google Scholar, and especially 163 and 177. Tuplin's general conclusion is that cavalry were not quite as important among the Achaemenids as many scholars have led us to believe, a view which has important ramifications for a number of military issues, including the identification of the Chiliarch par excellence as an infantry or cavalry commander; on which, see Section 4 below.

4 See, indicatively, Ducrey, P., Guerre et guerriers dans la Grèce antique (Paris, 1985), 100Google Scholar; Green, P., The Greco-Persian Wars (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1996), 60Google Scholar; Keaveney, A., The Life and Journey of Athenian Statesman Themistocles (524–460 b.c.?) as a Refugee in Persia (Lewiston, NY, 2003), 46, 119Google Scholar; Farrokh, K., Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (Oxford and New York, 2007), 75Google Scholar; Maurice, F., ‘The size of the army of Xerxes in the invasion of Greece 480 b.c.’, JHS 50 (1930), 210–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 226; Munro, J.A.R., ‘Some observations on the Persian wars (the campaign of Xerxes)’, JHS 22 (1902), 294–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 296; Shabazi (n. 2), 492. Sekunda, N., ‘The Persians’, in Hackett, J. (ed.), Warfare in the Ancient World (New York, 1989), 82–103Google Scholar, at 84, describes the ἀθάνατοι as ‘the King's ... personal division’.

5 See Briant, P., ‘The Achaemenid empire’, in Raaflub, K. and Rosenstein, N. (edd.), War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Cambridge, MA, 1999), 105–28Google Scholar, at 121; Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 131–2; cf. Young, T. Cuyler, ‘The consolidation of the empire and its limit of growth under Darius and Xerxes’, in Boardman, J., Hammond, N.G.L., Lewis, D.M. and Ostwald, M. (edd.), Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 4: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c. 525 to 479 b.c. (Cambridge, 1988 2), 53–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 91–2.

6 On this, see Cawkwell, G., The Greek Wars: The Failure of Persia (Oxford, 2006), 239Google Scholar: ‘The alleged Palatine army was no more than the Royal Guards’, largely supported by Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 132. Much earlier, Frye, R.N., ‘The institutions’, in Walser, G. (ed.), Beiträge zur Achämenidengeschichte (Wiesbaden, 1972), 83–93Google Scholar, at 91, was coming round to this way of thinking. Of course, these units could operate under the command of the king's generals, as seemingly occurred when Xerxes quit Greece and left the most senior units in Mardonius' hands (Hdt. 8.113.2).

7 See Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 115. For a discussion of iconographic, numismatic and similar non-literary sources for Achaemenid cavalry, see Tuplin (n. 3), 104–20.

8 Indeed, passages such as Hdt. 4.128.3 (cavalry mentioned, but no numbers provided), Plut. Art. 24.1 (10,000 cavalry) and Diod. Sic. 16.40.46 (30,000 cavalry), all of which deal with royal armies, offer us little with respect to identifying elite cavalry units. As Tuplin (n. 3), 143 identifies, cavalry units often ‘appear in military narrative without the remotest information about where they come from’.

9 For a detailed treatment of this, see Tuplin (n. 3), 158–74. On the equipment of Achaemenid cavalry, see Nefedkin, A.K., ‘The tactical development of Achaemenid cavalry’, Gladius 26 (2006), 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the comprehensive treatment of Bittner, S., Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden (Munich, 1985)Google Scholar, passim, and especially 180–225, with 274–88.

10 See especially Tatum, J., Xenophon's Imperial Fiction: On ‘The Education of Cyrus’ (Princeton, NJ, 1989)Google Scholar, chapters 1–2, supported by Christesen, P., ‘Xenophon's “Cyropaedia” and military reform in Sparta’, JHS 126 (2006), 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 47, with Due, B., The Cyropaedia: Xenophon's Aims and Methods (Aarhus, 1989), 26Google Scholar. But cf. Hirsch, S.W., The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire (Hanover and London, 1985)Google Scholar, chapter 4, and especially 62–3 and 87; and also Tuplin, C., ‘Xenophon and the garrisons of the Achaemenid empire’, AMI 20 (1987), 167–245Google Scholar, at 167; Stadter, P., ‘Fictional narrative in the Cyropaedia’, in Gray, V.J. (ed.), Xenophon (Oxford, 2010), 367–400Google Scholar, at 368. On Xenophon's possible use of Iranian oral tradition, see Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., ‘The death of Cyrus: Xenophon's Cyropaedia as a source for Iranian history’, in Gray, V.J. (ed.), Xenophon (Oxford, 2010), 439–53Google Scholar, at 441–4.

11 Marathon was chosen by the Persians as a suitable venue for a battle since the ground was suitable for deploying cavalry (Hdt. 6.102.1); cf. Nep. Milt. 4.1, 5.5 (10,000 horsemen supposedly mustered for the expedition, a figure which seems preposterous). Munro, J.A.R., ‘Some observations on the Persian wars (the campaign of Marathon)’, JHS 22 (1899), 185–97Google Scholar, at 189, thinks it impossible to ascertain the Persian force's composition, while Whatley, N., ‘On the possibility of reconstructing Marathon and other ancient battles’, JHS 84 (1964), 119–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 132–3, says little on the topic. Evans, J.A.S., ‘Cavalry about the time of the Persian wars: a speculative essay’, CJ 82 (1986/7), 97–106Google Scholar, at 106, concludes that the cavalry force must have been ‘very small’. On the campaign, see Sekunda, N., Marathon, 490 b.c.: The First Persian Invasion of Greece (Westport, CT and London, 2002)Google Scholar.

12 See Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 115–24.

13 On the use of the decimal system, see Dandamaev, M.A., A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, trans. Vogelsang, W. J. (Leiden, 1989), 194Google Scholar; Frye (n. 6), 91; Widengren, G., ‘Recherches sur la féodalisme iranien’, Orientalia Suecana 5 (1956), 79–182Google Scholar, at 160–2.

14 Maurice (n. 4), 230; Sekunda, N., The Persian Army, 560–330 b.c. (London, 1992), 6–7Google Scholar.

15 Tuplin (n. 3), 177 n. 291 observes that ‘some of the aikhmophoroi are described as “best and noblest”; no such qualification attaches to the cavalry’. But the phrases ἐκ Περσέων πάντων ἀπολελεγμένοι and ἐκ Περσέων ἀπολελεγμένη could be intended to carry similar weight.

16 On the possibility of Medes being members of elite Persian units, see Olmstead, A.T., History of the Persian Empire (Chicago and London, 1948), 238Google Scholar, but cf. Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 131 n. 82.

17 Obst (n. 2), 89.

18 This is suggested in passing by Sekunda (n. 14), 7, though with the caveat ‘this is less certain’ (i.e. compared to Herodotus having made the same mistake with the two groups of αἰχμοφόροι). Cawkwell (n. 6), 238 also thinks that Herodotus only meant one ‘unit of 1,000 elite Persian cavalry’, though he does not articulate his reasoning. Many scholars stick with two 1,000-strong elite cavalry units: see e.g. Obst (n. 2), 89; Hammond, N.G.L., ‘The expedition of Xerxes’, in Boardman, J., Hammond, N.G.L., Lewis, D.M. and Ostwald, M. (edd.), Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 4: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c. 525 to 479 b.c. (Cambridge, 1988 2), 518–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 534; Head, D., The Achaemenid Persian Army (Stockport, 1992), 63Google Scholar; Lazenby, J.F., The Defence of Greece 490–479 b.c. (Warminster, 1993), 23Google Scholar; see also Olmstead (n. 16), 247.

19 This, then, is part of the force that Isocrates (4.145) describes as ‘the army that goes around with the king’ (τὴν στρατιὰν τὴν μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως περιπολοῦσαν), though he does not mention if this was infantry, cavalry, or both. Note, too, the words of Darius I in the Inscription, Behistun: ‘The Persian and Median army, which was under [the control of] me, that was a small thing’ (col. 2 line 25); translation by Schmitt, R., The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Old Persian Text (London, 1991), 57Google Scholar.

20 Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 113.

21 How, W.W. and Wells, J., A Commentary on Herodotus, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1912)Google Scholar, 148 hold that οἱ μύριοι refers to ‘both the foot and the horse ... unless H. has altogether forgotten the myriad of horse’. But Herodotus' use of οἱ μύριοι Πέρσαι seems, here, to indicate ‘the 10,000 Persians’, in much the same way that Xenophon (Hell. 7.1.38) uses οἱ μύριοι to refer to the 10,000-strong assembly of the Arcadians.

22 De Sélincourt, A. (trans.), Herodotus: The Histories, rev. Burn, A.R. (repr. of the 1954 edn, London, 1972), 464Google Scholar.

23 Head (n. 18), 65 incorrectly writes that Herodotus refers to ‘the Persian doruphoroi’ at this locus. Cf. Diod. Sic. 11.19.6.

24 This is also observed by Macan, R.W., Herodotus: The Seventh, Eight & Ninth Books, vol. 1.2 (London, 1908), 539Google Scholar and Powell, J.E., Herodotus: Book VIII (Cambridge, 1939), 136Google Scholar, although they do not offer any explanation.

25 Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 122–3, following Masaracchia, A. (ed. and trans.), Erodoto: La battaglia di Salamina. Libro VIII delle Storie (Milan, 1990 2), 215Google Scholar; cf. Briant (n. 5), 118: ‘the Persian spearmen’. For further references to the locus, see Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 122 n. 35.

26 This was previously remarked upon by Tuplin (n. 3), 163, who also questioned whether 1,000 horsemen could have been contained ‘in the rather confined space in which the crucial Spartan-Persian engagement was fought’. Evans (n. 11), 100 does observe that a Persian cavalryman was more or less ‘a dragoon’, and so could fight on foot if needed, but we cannot be certain if this was the case here. For θωρηκοφόροι as cavalry, see Godley, A.D. (trans.), Herodotus, vol. 4. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA and London, 1925), 117Google Scholar; Powell, J.E., A Lexicon to Herodotus (Hildesheim, 1977 2)Google Scholar, s.v. θωρηκοφόροι; Grene, D. (trans.), Herodotus: The History (Chicago and London, 1987), 598Google Scholar. But cf. Briant, P., Histoire de l'Empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris, 1996), 209Google Scholar (‘troupes cuirassés’); Vannicelli, P., Corcella, A. and Fraschetti, A., Erodoto: Le Storie Libro VIII. La vittoria di Temistocle (Milan, 2003), 141Google Scholar (‘quelli armati di corazza’); Masaracchia (n. 25), 115 (‘quelli armati di corazza’). Powell (n. 24), 136 merely writes: ‘This corps has not been mentioned before.’ Macan (n. 24), 539 holds that they were infantry, but their ‘designation is not quite clear’. Lazenby (n. 18), 207 oddly describes them as ‘ordinary Persian troops’ wearing the sorts of cuirasses described at Hdt. 7.61.1, while Hammond (n. 18), 534 merely contends that ‘two of the Royal Guard regiments’ remained. Herodotus uses the Ionian version of θωρακοφόρος, a spelling which he employs again at 7.89.3 and 7.92 to describe armour-wearing Egyptian and Lycian troops respectively. At Xen. Cyr. 5.3.36–7, θωρακοφόροι are described as slow-moving, surely on account of the weight of their armour. Such troops also appear at Xen. Cyr. 5.3.52, 6.3.24, 7.1.10, but the context does not really suggest that they were meant to be elite formations. On θωρακοφόροι in Xenophon, see Tuplin (n. 10), 221, who sees such troops as infantry, with Widengren, G., ‘Über einige Probleme in der altpersischen Geschichte’, in Meixner, J. and Kegel, G. (edd.), Festschrift für Leo Brandt zum 60. Geburtstag (Cologne and Opladen, 1968), 517–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 528. On Mardonius' guard at Plataea being cavalry, see How and Wells (n. 21), 314; Shuckburgh, E.S., Herodotus VIII Urania (Cambridge, 1903), 129Google Scholar; Ufer, E., ‘Platää’, in Kromayer, J. and Veith, G. (edd.), Antike Schlachtfelder, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1929), 107–65Google Scholar, at 160–1; on the group being infantry, see A.R. Burn, ‘Persia and the Greeks’, in I. Gershevitch (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods (Cambridge, 1985), 292–391Google Scholar, at 330; Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 123–4 (though with some caveats); Shabazi (n. 2), 492. Cf. Barkworth (n. 2), 151, who agrees that at least one of the two 1,000-strong cavalry units was present at Plataea, yet the language used at Hdt. 8.113.2 is remarkably similar to that used to describe the αἰχμοφόροι at Hdt. 7.41.1, witness αἰχμοφόροι Περσέων οἱ ἄριστοί τε καὶ γενναιότατοι χίλιοι (‘1,000 spearmen of the best and most noble blood of Persia’).

27 Flower, M.A. and Marincola, J., Herodotus: Histories Book IX (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar, 218 opt for an infantry unit, but contend that there were indeed two 1,000-strong elite units of infantry and cavalry, a position followed by Bowie, A.M., Herodotus: Histories Book VIII (Cambridge, 2007), 205Google Scholar.

28 Young, T. Cuyler, ‘480/479 b.c.e.: a Persian perspective’, IA 15 (1980), 213–39Google Scholar, at 237 with n. 57. This is not the place to go into a detailed discussion about the size of Xerxes' army. Suffice it to say that even Maurice's conservative estimate ([n. 4], 224) of a limit of 210,000 men and 75,000 animals is probably too high; cf. the astronomical figures at Hdt. 7.185.3, where 2,641,610 fighting men (including ships' crews) are recorded.

29 It is uncertain whether Curtius' knowledge of the Immortals derives from Herodotus, or came via a different means; on the locus, see Dillery, J., ‘Xenophon, the military review and Hellenistic pompai’, in Tuplin, C. and Azoulay, V. (edd.), Xenophon and His World: Papers from a Conference Held in Liverpool in July 1999. Historia Einzelschriften 172 (Stuttgart, 2004), 259–76Google Scholar, at 268, with Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 129–30. On the locus in Pausanias, see Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 125; on the so-called Sassanian Immortals, see id., ‘The Sassanian “Immortals”’, IA 46 (2011), 289–313Google Scholar, where I suggest that the use of ἀθάνατοι to describe elements of the Sassanian cavalry is likely to be an attempt by later Greek writers to assimilate the Achaemenid and Sassanian dynasties for rhetorical reasons. Xenophon (Cyr. 7.5.68) writes of 10,000 palace guards (δορυφόροι) being instituted by Cyrus the Great, but, as Tuplin, C., ‘Xenophon and Achaemenid courts: a survey of the evidence’, in Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (edd.), Der Achämenidenhof. The Achaemenid Court: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema ‘Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen’ (Wiesbaden, 2010), 189–230Google Scholar, at 209 points out, ‘He does not label them as “Immortals”.’ Cf. Keaveney (n. 4), 43–4, who does indeed identify Xenophon's δορυφόροι as the Immortals.

30 Hesychius is as per the edition of Latte, K., Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 1 (Copenhagen, 1953)Google Scholar.

31 See also the testimony of the not always reliable John Malalas at Chron. 14.23. Socrates (HE 7.20.5) even describes the ‘so-called Immortals’ (οἱ καλούμενοι ... ἀθάνατοι) as being 10,000 strong (witness ἀριθμὸς δέ ἐστιν οὗτος μυρίων γενναίων ἀνδρῶν), as per Hdt. 7.83.1. The derivative Theophanes (A.M. 5918) provides similar information. These are the only later sources to describe the so-called Sassanian Immortals as being composed of 10,000, which seems highly unlikely in any case; see Charles (n. 29), 300–1.

32 Cawkwell (n. 6), 239. Cuyler Young (n. 5), 92 holds that the existence of a standing force of 10,000 cavalry is ‘possible’, yet oddly refers to the 1,000 guard infantry as ‘the Kinsmen’. Although it does not demonstrate the existence of a standing force of 10,000 cavalry, Xenophon writes of ‘the first-formed 10,000 cavalry’ (ἱππεῖς οἱ πρῶτοι γενόμενοι μύριοι) in the Cyropaedia (8.3.16), all in the context of a procession.

33 Plutarch (Art. 9.1–4) does not describe the composition of Artagerses' force.

34 Barkworth (n. 2), 165. Tuplin (n. 3), 176 does not identify the cavalry in any specific sense, though rightfully expresses doubt about 600 cavalry targeting a force of 6,000.

35 It is possible that the horsemen mentioned here were elite cavalry, for they were accompanied by the royal standard (witness τὸ βασίλειον σημεῖον); see Xen. An. 1.10.12.

36 Persian horsemen of Artaxerxes are also possibly described at Xen. An. 2.5.35, with the context suggesting, but not guaranteeing, that these men were cavalry (an escort of 300 men, described as τεθωρακισμένοι, accompanied three Persian members of the nobility who parlayed with the Greeks, including Xenophon himself).

37 On the respective utility of these sources with regard to military matters of the Alexandrian era, see Charles, M.B., ‘Elephants, Alexander and the Indian campaign’, Mouseion 10 (series 3) (2010), 327–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 329–32.

38 For another possible example, see n. 62 below.

39 But Hammond, N.G.L., ‘The battle of the Granicus River’, JHS 100 (1980) 73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 87, has dismissed Diodorus' account as ‘worthless’. He seems to have changed his tune, for, at id., Alexander the Great: King, Statesman and Commander (London, 1989 3), 73Google Scholar, he asserts that the account is ‘drawn, it seems, from an original account by Cleitarchus’. But W. Heckel, The Conquests of Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 2008)Google Scholar, 48 nevertheless urges caution when using Diodorus' account. Green, P., Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 b.c.: A Historical Biography (Harmondsworth, 1974)Google Scholar, 178 even sees an Iliad-like heroic overtone to the description. Hammond (above [1980]), 80 n. 21 holds that the presence of Darius' ‘“Kindred”, trained at his court as élite cavalrymen’, demonstrates that Alexander's plans were ‘well known at the Persian court’, while Briant (n. 26), 800 states that ‘ils représentent uniquement la noblesse perse d'Asie Mineure’. Note that, in Arrian (An. 1.15.7), Mithridates is identified as Darius' son-in-law. No matter, for the point is the same.

40 For further details of this, see Plut. Alex. 16.4–5, with id. Mor. 327a, 341b. For commentary, see Bosworth, A.B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1980), 123Google Scholar, who infers a Cleitarchean source tradition.

41 Ashley, J.R., The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359–323 b.c. (Jefferson, NC and London, 1998)Google Scholar, 225 writes that ‘[t]he two units of Darius’ Royal Bodyguards totalled 2,000' (and see also pp. 259–60), which, as I have suggested at Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 125 n. 49, is ‘presumably an allusion to the μηλοφόροι and the kinsmen cavalry found at Gaugamela’. Atkinson, J.E., A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus' Historiae Alexandri Magni Books 3 and 4 (Amsterdam, 1980)Google Scholar, 207 merely refers to the ‘two élite guard units’ at Gaugamela, each ‘some 1000 strong’.

42 Devine, A.M., ‘Grand tactics at the battle of Issus campaign’, AncW 12 (1985), 39–59Google Scholar, at 48; Hammond (n. 39), 103. For support, see also Head (n. 18), 67; W. Judeich, ‘Issos 333 v. Chr.’, in Kromayer and Veith (edd.) (n. 26), 372–84, at 356; Sekunda (n. 14), 57. Collins, A.W., ‘Alexander and the Persian court chiliarchy’, Historia 61 (2012), 159–67Google Scholar, at 162, initially seems to accept Curtius' notice, but later supports the view that the συγγενεῖς were ‘a 1,000-man unit’.

43 The συγγενεῖς are also mentioned at Diod. Sic. 17.35.2–3, with their women and wealth described as having accompanied them into the field – now a prize of Alexander and his men; cf. Curt. 4.14.11, where the presence of wives and children at Gaugamela acts as an incentive for the Persians to fight with bravery. The word συγγενεῖς, in the sense of men who were ‘relatives’ of the king, is possibly suggested by propinqui at Curt. 4.13.12, since propinquus can certainly take on the sense of ‘kinsman’ or ‘relative’; for examples, see OLD s.v. propinquus, 4.

44 Marsden, E.W., The Campaign of Gaugamela (Liverpool, 1964)Google Scholar, 58 refers to the συγγενεῖς as ‘royal horseguards’.

45 For an extended treatment of this puzzling passage, see Atkinson (n. 41), 123–35, with a discussion on sources at 133–5. On the Immortals having disappeared, see e.g. Fuller, J.F.C., The Generalship of Alexander the Great (repr. of the 1960 edn, New Brunswick, NJ, 1960), 164 n. 2Google Scholar; Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 114, 130, 133. Phylarchus (FGrHist 81 F 41 = Ath. 12.539f) describes 10,000 Persians being stationed outside Alexander's tent, but this cannot really be construed as Alexander having reintroduced the ἀθάνατοι. Some scholars do, however, support the notion of the Immortals under Darius III; see Atkinson (n. 41), 102, 123–4, 208; Devine, A.M., ‘The strategies of Alexander the Great and Darius III in the Issus campaign (333 b.c.)’, AncW 12 (1985), 24–38Google Scholar, at 33; Farrokh (n. 4), 103–4; Rahe, P., ‘The military situation in western Asia on the eve of Cunaxa’, AJPh 101 (1980) 79–96Google Scholar, at 94, with 79; Sekunda (n. 14), 45–50; Stoneman, R., ‘The Persian empire and Alexander’, in Romm, J. (ed.), The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander (New York, 2010), 361–6Google Scholar, at 364. But cf. Devine (n. 42), 58, where they do not appear in an order of battle, though a group of infantry referred to as ‘guard infantry’ on the same page are merely described elsewhere in the same article (p. 48) as ‘supporting infantry’, and are reduced from Curtius' 40,000 at 3.9.4 to 10,000 (the strength of the Immortals!).

46 Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 129. On Curtius' sources here, who could possibly have used Herodotus (if Curtius did not refer directly to the Histories), see Atkinson (n. 41), 12. Head (n. 18), 12 describes the passage as ‘possibly ... anachronistic’.

47 Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 129. But cf. Calmeyer, P., ‘Greek historiography and Achaemenid reliefs’, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and Kuhrt, A. (edd.), Achaemenid History II (Leiden, 1987), 11–26Google Scholar, who includes Curtius' description among ‘excellent descriptions [of Achaemenid parades] from Alexander's time’ (p. 14), though he does admit that certain elements seem ‘at first sight ... rather artificial or even mythical’ (p. 16); see also id., ‘Textual sources for the interpretation of Achaemenian palace decorations’, Iran 18 (1979), 55–63Google Scholar, on understanding relief scenes depicting royal processions and similar demonstrations of power.

48 Sekunda (n. 14), 57 accepts this figure, though does not adduce Curtius, yet he does so at id., ‘Achaemenid military terminology’, AMI 21 (1988), 76Google Scholar. Curtius, it seems, was not making up this figure by himself, for it is found in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus (4.146c), where we are told that the Great King dined with 15,000 men, and was accustomed to spend 400 talents on the feast. This information is reported as having come from Ctesias (FGrHist 688 F 39) and Dinon of Colophon, author of the now-lost Persica (FGrHist 690 F 24), though Athenaeus' language does not really tell us which source provided the figure of 15,000. One might suppose that Ctesias, having spent much time at the Persian court (under Artaxerxes II), would have been reasonably well informed about such matters.

49 The rather inaccurate translation of Rolfe, J.C., Quintus Curtius, vol. 1. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA and London, 1946), 85Google Scholar, of ‘lancers’, suggests horsemen.

50 On the cognati and propinqui, see Briant (n. 26), 321. On the συγγενεῖς in general, see 321–2, though the references adduced look at the title from a court rather than a military perspective.

51 Arrian (An. 3.21.1) describes Nabarzanes as ‘chiliarch of the cavalry which had taken flight with Darius [from the subsequent battle of Gaugamela]’ (χιλιάρχης τῶν ξὺν Δαρείῳ φευγόντων ἱππέων), which, as he earlier tells us, included the συγγενεῖς and some of the μηλοφόροι (An. 3.16.1). Cf. Arr. An. 3.23.4, where Nabarzanes is described as ‘Darius’ chiliarch' (ὁ Δαρείου χιλιάρχης). On this, see especially Meeus, A., ‘Some institutional problems concerning the succession to Alexander the Great: prostasia and chiliarchy’, Historia 58 (2009), 287–310Google Scholar, at 309–10.

52 Aristobulus recorded a Persian order of battle that later fell into Greek hands (Arr. An. 3.11.3 = FGrHist 139 F 17). That said, E. Badian, ‘Alexander in Iran’, in Gershevitch (n. 26), 420–501, at 435 n. 1, has expressed doubts about whether it ever existed. Cf. Hammond (n. 42), 141.

53 Cf. Worthington, I., Alexander the Great: Man and God (Harlow, 2004), 97Google Scholar, where we read that there was a ‘3,000-strong Royal Bodyguard of infantry and cavalry’ at Gaugamela, which seems to be borrowed from Curtius' account of Issus (see 3.9.4). Note Curt. 4.15.24, where we read that the two kings were protected by ‘picked troops’ (delecti).

54 This presumably Cleitarchean information, since it also appears in Curtius (4.14.8), obviously contradicts Arrian (An. 3.11.5), who says that Darius was positioned in the centre, although the order of battle recorded by Aristobulus might not have necessarily reflected the position of the Persian units throughout the engagement. Note, for example, the appearance of fifteen elephants in the order of battle (Arr. An. 3.8.6, with 3.11.6), even though they do not seem to have been encountered by Alexander's men until they reached the Persian baggage train (Arr. An. 3.15.4, 3.15.6). On this, see Charles, M.B., ‘Alexander, elephants and Gaugamela’, Mouseion 8 (series 3) (2008), 9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘Turrets, Gaugamela and the historian's duty of care’, Scholia 18 (2009), 29–36Google Scholar.

55 Cf. Curt. 4.15.24–5. Milns, R.D., Alexander the Great (London, 1968)Google Scholar, 119 omits any guard cavalry from his description of Darius' forces, but oddly holds that there were 2,000 ‘heavily armed Persians who formed the Royal bodyguard’, with these being described as part of the ‘infantry's backbone’ (see p. 118, but cf. p. 120: ‘2,000 Royal Bodyguards’). A force of 1,000 guard cavalry is followed by Tarn, W.W., Alexander the Great, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1948)Google Scholar, 1.46, 2.183 n. 7, 188 and Ashley (n. 41), 260. Fuller (n. 45), 164 claims a ‘royal body-guard’ of 2,000, so 1,000 would have been cavalry (as per the diagram on p. 165, where guard infantry and cavalry are shown).

56 Head (n. 18), 61 conjectures that the reference to the whole 1,000 being marshalled together suggests a normally much smaller squadron size, perhaps ‘a hundred-man squadron’ on account of the Persians' decimal system. Diodorus (17.59.4) also writes of ‘those troops belonging to the palace’ (τούτοις οἵ ... περὶ τὰ βασίλεια διατρίβοντες) participating in the battle, though one cannot be sure what this means. This statement might simply refer to the μηλοφόροι and συγγενεῖς being present, but without an acknowledgement of their specific unit names.

57 Briant (n. 26), 321; repeated at 800.

58 Sekunda (n. 14), 57.

59 Curtius uses the phrase equitum praefectum at 4.9.7, and praefectum equitatus Persarum at 4.9.25.

60 Sekunda (n. 48), 69–77, at 76, elsewhere refers to this group as ‘another elite cavalry regiment’, though he observes that its relationship with the 1,000 described at Curt. 4.9.7 is ‘uncertain’.

61 In another work, Sekunda (n. 60), 76 describes this locus as referring to ‘one “select” (delecti) cavalry regiment numbering one thousand’.

62 Tarn (n. 55), II.183 n. 7, supported by Griffith, G.T., ‘Alexander's generalship at Gaugamela’, JHS 67 (1947), 77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 84 n. 26, who adds all sorts of conjecture. Tarn (n. 55), II.187–8 holds that the guard cavalry charged at Gaugamela. His interpretation of Arr. An. 3.14.5, where Indian and Persian cavalry are mentioned, is that ‘no other body of horse but the Guard is possible’ (p. 187). Cf. Mazaeus' plundering of Alexander's camp early in the battle at Curt. 4.15.5 (with 1,000 men), Diod. Sic. 17.59.5 (with 2,000 Cadusii and 1,000 ‘picked’ Scythians, witness χιλίους τῶν Σκυθῶν ἱππεῖς ἐπιλέκτους) and Plut. Alex. 32.3. This, according to Tarn (n. 55), II.182, is ‘taken from the charge of the Persian Guard later’, though he does not explain how the guard cavalry become Cadusii and Scythians in Diodorus. On this issue, see especially Burn, A.R., ‘Notes on Alexander's campaigns’, JHS 72 (1952), 81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 88–90, who rejects the notion of guard cavalry overrunning Alexander's camp, as an interpretation of Arrian might suggest. He asserts that it is much easier to accept Diodorus' story that the camp was attacked by ‘Scythian and Kadousian’ cavalry; cf. Griffith (above), 84–5 with n. 26. Note that, at Diod. Sic. 17.59.5, Mazaeus is on the right wing ‘with the best of the cavalry’ (μετὰ τῶν ἀρίστων ἱππέων), and at 17.60.5, ‘with the greatest portion and the best of the cavalry’ (πλείστους ἔχων καὶ κρατίστους ἱππεῖς), but this need not include the συγγενεῖς, especially since they could hardly protect Darius, in the centre of the field, from this position; see also Curt. 4.16.1, 4.16.4. Unfortunately, Arrian's account is somewhat lacunose at this point.

63 Arrian, however, gives 3,000 cavalry at An. 3.7.1, together with an unspecified amount of infantry (there is a lacuna), including 2,000 Greek mercenaries; on this locus, see Bosworth (n. 40), 286.

64 Sekunda (n. 60), 76. On the Companion cavalry (ἑταῖροι), see Badian (n. 52), 424, who stresses an ‘aristocratic’ origin. At the beginning of Alexander's reign, they were divided into eight squadrons, one being the king's personal horse guards (ἄγημα), and numbered 1,800 in toto, but ‘later they were reinforced and reorganized’.

65 Sekunda (n. 60), 76, followed by Collins, A.W., ‘The office of Chiliarch under the Successors’, Phoenix 55 (2001), 259–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 271 n. 61; Head (n. 18), 12. Cf. Bosworth, A.B., ‘Alexander and the Iranians’, JHS 100 (1980), 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 15 n. 125: ‘they may be a picked unit’. Badian (n. 52), 482 conjectures that some Iranians did indeed join the Companions, though he confesses himself unsure regarding the origins of the Εὐάκαι. He contends that the Iranians drawn into the Companions probably ‘fought in a separate unit’. The Companions were eventually organized into five regiments, one being of Iranian troops, with the senior officers ‘presumably’ being Macedonian. Iranians were eventually even admitted into the ἄγημα, with eight such men, including the non-Persian brother of Alexander's wife Roxane, being referred to by Arrian (An. 7.6.5).

66 Hinz, W., Neue Wege im Altpersischen (Wiesbaden, 1973), 29Google Scholar.

67 At this locus, Alexander's guard was made up of 500 Persian μηλοφόροι and 500 Macedonian ἀργυράσπιδες. In addition, Arrian (An. 7.29.4) writes that Alexander introduced the μηλοφόροι into the Macedonian army. In the view of Collins (n. 65), 264–5, this could relate to (a) Diodorus' claim (17.110.1) that 1,000 Persians were admitted into the hypaspists attached to the court (an event which occurred after Alexander's discharge of Macedonian veterans in 324 b.c.), and (b) Justin's broadly similar material at 12.12.4. On this, see also Tuplin, C., ‘Persian decor in Cyropaedia: some observations’, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and Drijvers, J. W. (edd.), Achaemenid History V (Leiden, 1990), 17–29Google Scholar, at 22, with Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 128–9. Arrian (An. 7.11.1) also tells us that Alexander, again near his death, only allowed those he called his kinsmen (συγγενεῖς) to kiss him, seemingly in emulation of Persian practice – something which shocked the Macedonians. This, of course, does not mean that those so honoured constituted an elite cavalry unit, for we are told that he divided the commands of his units among this picked group (witness τῶν Περσῶν τοὺς ἐπιλέκτους).

68 Hammond (n. 42), 141.

69 Strack, M.L., ‘Griechische Titel im Ptolemäerreich’, RhM 55 (1900), 161–90Google Scholar, at 173 n. 2.

70 Sekunda (n. 4), 85.

71 See also Bosworth (n. 40), 298.

72 It is possible, as I have argued at Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 121 n. 28, that the future Darius I served with this unit during Cambyses' Egyptian campaign, for Herodotus describes him as a δορυφόρος at 3.139.2.

73 Meeus (n. 51), 309 (with 310). On controlling access to the king, see especially Plut. Them. 27.2.

74 Meeus (n. 51), 309, with Welles, C.B. (trans.), Diodorus Siculus: Library of History, vol. 8. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA and London, 1963), 286–7Google Scholar n. 1; Lewis, D.M., Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1977), 17Google Scholar. For references, see Arr. An. 3.21.1, with 3.16.1 and 3.23.4.

75 Collins (n. 65), 271 and id. (n. 42), 162–3. Keaveney, A., ‘The chiliarch and the person of the King’, in Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (edd.), Der Achämenidenhof. The Achaemenid Court: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema ‘Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen’ (Wiesbaden, 2010), 499–508Google Scholar, at 499, following on from his discussion at id. (n. 4), 119–29, also argues that there was only one chiliarch par excellence. Cf. Briant, P., ‘Sources gréco-hellénistiques, institutions perses et institutions macédoniennes: continuités, changements et bricolages’, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., Kuhrt, A. and Root, M. Cool (edd.), Achaemenid History VIII (Leiden, 1994), 283–310Google Scholar, at 295 n. 31, who oddly thinks that the μηλοφόροι at Gaugamela were cavalry (‘les cavaliers’).

76 At Diod. Sic. 11.69.1, the commander of the δορυφόροι (presumably = μηλοφόροι) is assumed to be most influential with the king. On the importance of cavalry over infantry, see e.g. Hunt, P., ‘Military forces’, in Sabin, P., van Wees, H. and Whitby, M. (edd.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. 1: Greece, The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome (Cambridge, 2007), 108–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 126. Evans (n. 11), 99, emphasizes the importance of Persian cavalry to the Great King's army, but does not go as far as Hunt.

77 Tuplin (n. 3), 179–82. Tuplin even observes, quite tellingly (p. 180), that ‘[t]here is remarkably little sign that the Greeks found Persian cavalry inherently exotic or awesome, and there is no perceptible demonizing of the Iranian horseman’. Cf. Konijnendijk, R., ‘“Neither the less valorous nor the weaker”: Persian military might and the battle of Plataia’, Historia 61 (2012), 1–17Google Scholar, at 9, who stresses that Greek soldiers were fearful of specialist horsemen, with the defeat of the latter normally being described as ‘a great achievement’. This need not necessarily contradict Tuplin, for one might assume that the Greeks had a high regard for the fighting abilities of the Persian cavalry throughout our period.

78 Collins (n. 42), 162–3.

79 Cawkwell (n. 6), 239.

80 On this point, and with reference to Achaemenid cavalry, see Evans (n. 11), 102–4. The substantial cost associated with keeping a large number of cavalry under arms is also suggested by Xenophon. At Oec. 4.5, he makes Socrates claim that the governors of those regions providing tribute to the Great King supplied maintenance (τροφή) for a specified number of horsemen, among other types of soldier; see also Oec. 4.6, with commentary by Hirsch (n. 10), 9–11.

81 Tuplin (n. 3), 153–6, with Arr. An. 3.11.3–7. Libya is also recorded as providing horsemen at Hdt. 7.86.2, though these are described as charioteers. Herodotus observes (7.84) that horsemen are found in the various nations under Persian sway, but only a small number furnished cavalry for the expeditionary force – 80,000 horsemen were supposedly assembled (Hdt. 7.87).

82 On this episode, see n. 62. The overall excellence of the cavalry under Mazaeus, which obviously did not include the συγγενεῖς, is also asserted at Diod. Sic. 17.60.5. Cf. An. 3.15.2, where Arrian claims that the best cavalry in the army – and the most numerous – were Persians.

83 Perhaps these are the cavalrymen described by Arrian (An. 1.15.2) as ‘the best of the Persian horse’ (τὸ κράτιστον τῆς Περσικῆς ἵππου) at the Granicus. In a similar way, one might imagine that Cyrus the Younger's 600 picked cavalry, which accompanied him in the centre at Cunaxa, were regarded as superior to the 1,000 Paphlagonian cavalry positioned on the right wing; see Xen. An. 1.8.5–6. I thank CQ's anonymous referee for this observation pertaining to satrapal cavalry.

84 Given the existence of a cavalry and infantry royal guard (namely, the συγγενεῖς and μηλοφόροι), one imagines that a satrap might also have been able to count upon a cognate infantry formation. Such units are perhaps alluded to at Xen. Oec. 4.5–7, though the details are unclear.

85 Evans (n. 11), 101.

86 The locus classicus is Hdt. 7.83.1–2. The word is also used at Hdt. 7.211.1, where members of the ἀθάνατοι fought at Thermopylae (479 b.c.), quite obviously as infantry given the context (see also Diod. Sic. 11.7.4), and at Hdt. 8.113.2. It is, of course, curious that the word ἀθάνατοι is not used when the infantry myriad is introduced at Hdt. 7.41.1, nor at 7.55.2, but this could be the result of Herodotus using different underlying sources for different parts of the narrative. Cf. Hdt. 7.31.

87 It is not entirely clear if Xenophon, here, is referring to satrapal cavalry, or to what might be termed ‘palatine’ cavalry. The context, being a Socratic dialogue, does not necessarily inspire complete confidence in the material.

88 On this claim, see especially the Persian source described in n. 19.

89 Charles (n. 1 [2011]), 131.

90 On the doubling of the singulares, see Durry, M., Les cohortes prétoriennes (repr. of the 1938 edn, Paris, 1968), 88Google Scholar; on Constantine's formation of the scholae, see Speidel, M.P., Riding for Caesar: The Roman Emperors' Horse Guards (Cambridge, MA, 1994), 75–6Google Scholar; for the seven cavalry scholae of the Eastern empire, see Not. Dign. Or. 11.4–10 (the eastern part of the Notitia presumably dates to the early part of the fifth century a.d.).

91 See especially Tuplin (n. 3), 180.

92 On the ‘full-time’ nature of the ‘guard units’, see Barkworth (n. 2), 161. One might infer that they were well trained in comparison with other units.

93 According to Lewis (n. 74), 17 n. 90, they were ‘on detachment’ at the Granicus.