Hellenistic Chiliarchoi

[Komanos]

Hi, first topic for me. Doing some research on Hellenistic militaries, and a continual point of difficulty is figuring out force structure. One of the key difficulties in this area is with cavalry.

Now, we know that Hephaistion was appointed chiliarchos of the hetairoi over the course of Alexander's campaigns. Is he the only cavalry chiliarchos of cavalry attested in the literary sources? He may not have been replaced by another chiliarchos, according to Arrian (Anab 7.14.10, see Collins "The office of the chiliarch under the successors" Phoenix 55.3/4 (2001), p 267), rather, Perdikkas, and then Seleukos, may have had the rank of hipparchos in their commands of the hetairoi (or, to follow Collins, we assume that Arrian was misguided by the bias of Ptolemy and both Perdikkas and Seleukos also were chiliarchoi).

So is there any evidence that this continued into Hellenistic period? Or are we most likely dealing with an infantry officer when we find a chiliarch?

[Paralus]

The confusion arises over the term itself and its meaning. The Chiliarchy held by Hephaestion was the second official of empire (after the king). It came with the command of the cavalry hipparchy commanded by Hephaestion.

Perdikkas, on Hephaestion's death, was promoted to Hephaestion's hipparchy and - a fortiori - his Chiliarchy. Once Perdikkas had called the infantry's bluff, murdered the slightly credulous Meleager and several hundred of his co-agitators, he set about putting those "faithful" into positions of power to support him. Eumenes to his satrapy and, more importantly, Seleucus to his prior hipparchy (that of Hephaestion) and, so, to the chiliarchy. Seleucus had, in one political pole vault, gone from commander of the Royal hypaspists to chiliarch.

After this, though, the office of chiliarch or "vizier" semms to have diminished. If there are chiliarchs under the Diadochs they most likely are cavalry commanders. The Hellenistic model of state and kingship - largely molded by Monophthalmus - enshrined the son and successor as, essentially, the Chiliarch. Even better: "co-ruler".

[Komanos]

There's some difficulty in connecting the chiliarchos of the hetairoi with the chiliarchos/vizier position. Hephaistion held both, but didn't attain them simultaneously. Perdikkas is declared chiliarchos (or perhaps hipparchos) of the hetairoi after the passing of Hephaistion, but he is only declared chiliarchos/vizier as part of the settlement in 323. I don't think the evidence comes anywhere near supporting an a fortiori connection, though it is possible that we could construe the settlement as affirming Perdikkas' position, rather than granting it.

As for whether any Hellenistic chiliarchos should be automatically cavalry, I think that is also unlikely. We know that the chiliarchia existed for infantry, attested across multiple sources (inscriptions, papyri, and the late hellenistic tactical manuals), and it seems unlikely that the commander of a chiliarchia would be called anything other than chiliarchos. That infantry chiliarchoi existed doesn't seem much in doubt to me, whether the Seleukids and Ptolemies had cavalry chiliarchoi is a more interesting and problematic question.

[Paralus]

No source material at the office so I'll fly by memory.

Infantry 'chiliarchs' are attested amongst Persian armies. For Alexander's army there is evidence of a reorganisation that may have included a 'chiliarch' but the only "surety" are those of the hypaspists/Silver Shields (seemingly brigaded into 1,000s).

There is no evidence, in the sources, whatsoever that the structures that Alexander put in place were, in any way, altered immediately prior to or in the aftermath of his death. Alexander made the commander of the "lead" hipparchy the empire's chiliarch or "vizier". That person was Hephaestion. On his death Alexander entrusted the corpse of his lover, Hephaestion, to Perdikkas: he was obviously the most trusted of those at court. He appointed Perdikkas to Hephaestion's hipparchy and hence the duties that came with it: the chiliarchy. That Arrian does not note this is due, in very large part, to Ptolemy having no wish to advance his serious rival's prestige.

The confirmation of the appointments after Alexander's death are exactly that. Arrian (Successors) simply states that the satrapies etc were confirmed. It is then that best laid plans of marshals are challenged. The major reason is that the infantry are not at all pleased at a bastard king. To which I'd add that others were not at all pleased with Perdikkas' positioning of the regency towards himself. Originally this regency devolved upon several bodyguards. Problem was, the only one in attendance after the others took up their satrapies would be the aggrandising Perdikkas.

After the ensuing revolt and compromise with prejudice, the lot is recast. Perdikkas has himself appointed the regent and Guardian of the kings (along with the departing Craterus who will, of course, never be in a position to act on it) and appoints Seleucus to Hephaestion's hipparchy along with, I'd argue, its attendant responsibility of chiliarch.

[Paullus Scipio]

Under the Achaemenids, the chiliarch(Persian; Hazarapatis ) of the Corps of the Immortals had the duty of watching over the safety of the king of kings at all times and was in fact the second most important person in the realm (Diodorus, 18.48.4-5; ) - the Hazarapatis was also a Military administrator, and as Herodotus tells us, commander of a thousand. There were thus two distinct meanings to Hazarapatis/Chiliarch - a high ranking Military officer, commander of a thousand, but the Chiliarch of thr Royal Bodyguard was something much more - vizier, adviser, most trusted, second most important man in the realm.
Alexander will have been very mindful of this second Persian meaning when appointing Hephaistion as Chiliarch of the re-organised Agema of the Hetaroi...it was a great honour, effectively appointing him 'second' in power, rank etc in the New Order.

[Komanos]

Thanks for the information, its a nice reflection of political and military positions which don't quite overlap so much as parallel. What I'm hoping to figure out is whether there's any evidence that the use of a chiliarchos for the hetairoi or for other cavalry continued into the Hellenistic period. The place I'd probably most suspect it would be in the Seleukid empire, with the agema and hetairoi both numbering a thousand. But would those be special cases, or is there evidence that, for regular cavalry units, the traditional ilarchia either dissolved or was absorbed into the larger formations used, presumably, by the infantry: the pentakosiarchia and then chiliarchia.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul wrote:-

But would those be special cases, or is there evidence that, for regular cavalry units, the traditional ilarchia either dissolved or was absorbed into the larger formations used, presumably, by the infantry: the pentakosiarchia and then chiliarchia.

As Paralus remarked, the only units which we know for sure were organised into 'thousands' were the Hypaspists/Argyraspides - the original 2000, organised into 4 pentakosiarchies were re-organised and expanded into 3 chiliarchies by 329 B.C. The Pezetairoi seem to have consistently been organised into Taxeis 2,000 strong ( or more exactly the 2,048 of the Hellenistic manuals) - the names alter somewhat for the various sub-units of the 16,384 full phalanx in Hellenistic manuals and 'taxis' becomes a 128 man sub-unit, while the former Taxis of 2,048 becomes Keras, Telos or Merarchia, but the 1,024 man sub-unit remains chiliarchia, presumably commanded by a Chiliarch.
Cavalry nomenclature is more confusing ...for example Arrian giving an 'Ile' as a unit of 64 men in his tactical manual, yet using 'Ile' in his history of Alexander to describe a squadron/hipparchia! (probably an Ile before Alexander's re-organisation was 256 troopers, and the later Hipparchia was composed of two former'Iles', and later still with the Companions organised into Epihipparchia 1,024 strong ( the equivalent of the Infantry 'Chiliarchia')......but I digress, the significant point is that neither in Alexander's day or afterward do cavalry appear organised into, or referred to as 'Chiliarchia', nor in the Tactical manuals of Aelian, Arrian or Asklepiodotus ( in which an Ile is 64 men, and the old 256 man unit is a 'tarentinarchia', Hipparchia is the 512 man unit ( again) and an Epihipparchia is the 1,024 man unit with a 'Telos' ( c.f. infantry use) of 2,048. Aelian goes one stage further, calling a 4,096 man unit an 'Epitagma' ( the others don't go beyond 'Telos').

So to answer your question, cavalry units 1,024 strong existed following Alexander's re-organisations and later, but do not ever seem to have been called 'chiliarchia', which seems to be an exclusively infantry term.....

[Komanos]

Thanks, interesting.