Hippeis, not Hippies

[Ghostmojo]

However, when Leonidas I set off for Thermopylai - the 300 hundred accompanied him performing what must be seen as a protective role (especially in light of the Delphic prophecy). We can argue/discuss til the cows come home whether the Thermopylai contingent were the actual Hippeis/part hippeis/other body etc., but in my opinion they were - due to L1 replacing men who had no sons with those that did. Otherwise he might well have said "I'm not taking the Hippeis this time" (knowing this was likely to be a suicide mission) but selecting another unit instead - and why be so prescriptive about the 300 figure?

A likely answer is that 300 is tied to the size of a specific unit of men. For example it is 50 files 6 deep or 25 files 12 deep. The original number may well have been set by some tripartate past involving the tribes etc., but this need not be the proximal cause.

Yes maybe. I certainly believe the Dorian subtribes to be a factor. One wonders at the antiquity of the Hippeis, since their number wasn't rationalised to fit in with the various changes to the Lochos/Mora structure - which might have resulted in a 256/288/320 type of figure. Of course they weren't selected by the same age/call-up procedure of the main army, so comparisons and mathematical analyses might be entirely futile. Although I remember distinctly reading somewhere ([size=85:3k4785om]just can't remember where[/size]) that the Hippeis fought with (or as a part of) the first mora (regiment) of Spartan infantry - more accepted wisdom states they remained apart. If they did - one has to wonder why, when their size would have made them smaller than many units they might have faced. However, and again I speculate (but also incorporate some of previous posted comments of others) that perhaps the 300 was indeed augmented by the king's more immediate field mess companions, which might have led to a unit strength of 320 or thereabouts. In any event they would have formed part of a continuous line when required so their smaller size might not have mattered much. I suggest that perhaps they were drawn specifically from the aristocracy originally. In that respect they would have been from the same echelons as the two royal families and therefore naturally formed his protective peer group. The usage of the term knights reminds one of the fabled Arthurian companions or indeed to return to Hellas - of Alexander's immediate peer group. It was certainly not unusual for such social structure to pervade into the armies of those times (or indeed many other periods in history).

You are entirely right they were an elite unit. Other states had them so why not Sparta? However, certain things about the city state of Sparta were different. In effect all the Spartiatai were elite (by any reasonable definition of the term), and along with the Krypteia (however that manifested itself) the Hippeis (who may well have conducted Krypteia operations) must be considered super elite - being superior to the rest of the citizen manpower (who in turn were far superior to the average soldier of other Greek armies).

Our modern American and British armies are if anything more professional that the Spartan army and yet we have a great number of super- and hyper- elite units. It may be that in an armed state like Sparta there needed to be elite units, for in other poleis, just being in the army was "elite" and required certain status.

As to the Krypteia, I find this one of the most overworked factors in Spartan history. They were a rather small group and only from a specific age range. This were more like the rite of passage of an elite fraternity that a standing force of Ninjas

I think there is possibly a little more to the Krypteia than that, as I tried to develop in another thread which wasn't widely responded to . I am intrigued by the continuing presence of this entity down to the tantalising reference to the appearance of their commander at Sellasia. To use your modern British/American forces analogy, perhaps the Hippeis would be like a Household Guards unit (or US equivalent), whereas the Krypteia more like the SAS or Delta Force.

Perhaps we could develop this discussion further: <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=27368">viewtopic.php?f=19&t=27368<!-- l ?

Even the Argive 1000 were disinclined to take a stand at 1st Mantinea and rather ingloriously did a runner with Agis II in hot pursuit.

A bit unfair perhaps since they had already won their battle and were taken by suprise. That they did not go head to head like the Thebans at Coronea is more a function of the fact that the Spartans wisely did not try to stop them as Agiselaos did that Coronea. An interesting fact of Coronea that is often missed is that the Thebans actually "won" the second battle. The Spartans tried to stop them from fleeing, met them head on, and the thebans pushed right through them, breaking their line after a fierce struggle. It could have been Delium all over again, for I think it likely that the Thebans were extra deep here too, but the breakthrough was small and the thebans already fairly well broken as well. But as foreshadowing goes, this is often forgotten.

Yes perhaps a little dismissive, bearing in mind one school of opinion was that the Argives were given the necessary space to make an orderly withdrawal - the Spartans not wishing to demolish fellow Dorians in front of their Ionian compatriots on this occasion. As for foreshadowing - the events of Koroneia and Tegyra were criminally and foolishly overlooked by Spartan military leaders, which should have prevented the disasters of Leuktra and 2nd Mantinea.