11-23-2009, 09:30 PM
Great stuff. Kudos to Paul Bardunias for thinking up a specific topic which stimulates a terrific discussion from people who have scholarly viewpoints to offer. From my view, any solid conclusion should not be paramount (not to mention impossible), but the discussions which we exchange amid our varying opinions certainly sharpen our insights into all this. Studying the accounts deeply is a requisite (ancient and modern), but from discourses such as these we can broaden our views. However, I disagree with just about everything. But it's all moot.
I feel Hippeis should be capitalized, and hippeis, with regards to a horsemen in a generic sense (in the ancient Greek world), should not. But that's based from an English language perspective. Every similar pattern cannot be the same: describing an ancient Greek as Laconic surely differentiates than calling him/her 'laconic'. Because a/the Spartan royal guard (purposely not capitalized for now, the martial unit of this thread topic) were presumably at first mounted (and/or on chariots, perhaps) then on foot as they expanded (presumably), the term hippeis can potentially be inter-changeable, just as the larger 'problem' with an often equivocal use of 'Sparta' (??????) and 'Lacedaemon' (??????????) (Lacedaemonians could be classified as Spartans, but Spartans not as Lacedaemonians). Simply put, as best I can and as to how I opine it, the Hippeis of Sparta was indeed the name of the 'Horsemen' who constituted the picked 300 of the elite royal-bodyguard; the name stood despite the fact they began to operate on foot by the Classical Age. These indeed were the 'Horsemen' mentioned by Herodotus (The Histories, Book 1.67), and that they could perform other tasks other than always being at one of the king's side is not proof that other specialized units existed which were divorced from their institution.
One can accuse me pedantic rationalizing, but, in basically defining an army's Royal Guard, I sustain Wikipedia's description, before they start discussing details and the Royal Guards of various states and eras:
"A Royal Guard describes any group of military bodyguard, soldiers or retainers responsible for the protection of a royal person, such as a King or Queen. They are often an elite unit of the regular armed forces and may maintain special rights or privileges."
Thanks Howard, and it's my pleasure. We actually have more in common than Sparta and NYC - I was born Jamey Johnston :o
Wirral is near Liverpool, no? I don't want to look up stuff right now (actually, I probably will by opening multiple tabs any minute). Yes, the Battle of Brunanburh - Athelstan the Glorious. As you see by current surname, my mother married a Scotsman. Tom, my step-dad, often spoke of the Kingdom of Alba with pride! We won't rub it in, eh?
I don't have a rigid problem with the challenging of academics, but I don't feel it should be done for the intrinsic 'challenge' of it (no accusation here from me, just sharing my beliefs on the issue), and I feel we should be a little extra sure we understand fully what they're stating, and check for a larger context. For example, Involving Xenophon's pivotal but brief phraseology in Book 6.4.14 on the Hippeis, one historian emphasized that Xenophon doesn't mention the Hippeis as being 'part of the army which was around the king' (peri ton basilea; he/she provided these modern Greek translations) and neither among 'those who were fighting in front of him' (peri ton Kleombroton to prôton ekratoun têi machêi), both terms used in Book 6.4.12-13. I apologize, as it's good trivia for our topic here, but I don't remember the author or title (I can dig it out); his/her angle was dealing with some aspects of Greek warfare, and in the writer's chapter dealing with the Spartans at Mantinea (using Thucydides' account of that battle as a gauge for Spartan military units, which is the part from the great ancient historian which we can indeed form a good gauge on much of the Spartan army). But the writer didn't bother mentioning that the very next section (14 of Book 6.4) reads 'then the royal bodyguard' (kai hoi men hippoi) as among those who were stymied by the Theban forward surge after or around the same time some noted figures he mentioned fell; even if he/she doesn't agree with the translations and emendation concerning the term hippeis for the royal bodyguard, why not even mention it amid the argument? I would argue that in three juxtaposing and brief references to 'men around the king', it shouldn't be identified who exactly they were in all three phrases. A major battle is being described, and it is irrefutable that the Spartan royal bodyguard (whoever they truly were and what they were specifically assigned) were among those who fell back under the famous Theban push under Epaminondas' tactical designs.
Well, this is what the Loeb Classical Library (Xenophon, Hellenica, Vol. I, Books 1-4, translated by Carleton L. Brownson) reads verbatim, Book 4.5.8,
"...When they came running together, he [Agesilaus] told the rest of them to follow along as quickly as possible after swallowing what they could - for they had not yet breakfasted - while he himself with his tent companions went on ahead breakfastless. And the spearmen of his body-guard, fully armed, accompanied him with all speed, he leading the way and his tent companions following after him. But when he had already passed the hot springs and come to the plain of Lechaeum, three horsemen rode up and reported that the bodies of the dead had been recovered. When he heard this, he gave the order to ground arms, and after resting the army for a short time, led it back again to the Heraeum; and on the following day he exposed the prisoners and captured property for sale..."
The original Greek text, to reiterate from my first post, clearly reads ????????? (doruphoroi in the modern Greek, from Perseus.tufts) for the spearmen of his body-guard. Forgive my nitpicking, but the wording is 'spearmen of his body-guard', thus a part of it which, quite possibly, Agesilaus allocated to accompany him with 'all speed'. Of course, I need to be wary with such an assessment for an army which was not one of intricate combined arms. Wouldn't all the body-guard be spearmen, in an army of hoplites? Clealry, these spearmen denote those wielding a dory. As for the contingent of hundred in Herodotus (The Histories, Book 6.56), that could merely be the contingent of one of the three Dorian tribes, and not necessarily a different 'entity' from the Hippeis, if you will.
Basically, I feel an overlooked and specific issue which should be added on to the acknowledged overall problem of the nebulousness of perusing ancient historiography, is that, in the case of Sparta, one affecting factor as to why we haven't been availed any deep information about the infrastructure of the Spartan army is for a basic reason which can be identified. The practiced skill and experience of the Spartan soldier was well known to other Greeks, who bore witness to the Spartan army. But unlike with the reign of Philip II of Macedon, in which the contemporary and voluminous accounts of Ephorus, Theopompus, Marsyas of Pella, and Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus did not survive for us (the titled and fragmentary nature of their works reveals their works would without any doubt shed enormous light on the paucity of material we have to study the great Macedonian), the accounts of Thucydides (particularly his remarks on Spartan army composition at Sphacteria and Mantinea) and Xenophon, of which both we have in full, still leaves uncertainties, especially when a debate is triggered on a thematic basis which is centered around entailed detail to get a good picture. Ancient writers, even the likes of Hieronymus of Cardia and Polybius, were not equipped to write military history as a modern war correspondent could; when one Willem vanden Velde (the Elder) waded out in a boat and sketched his observations of the naval clash between England and the United Provinces (1653) off the island of Texel, and subsequently reported his inspectionss to the Staten-Generaal, perhaps the first 'war correspondent' in a modern sense was born (at the time he was simply the official artist of the Dutch fleet). Most ancient writers didn't pay as much attention to military details (as with economics, etc.) as we may wish, but in the case of Sparta, it was a closed society; Thucydides tells us in his opening account of Mantinea (418 B.C.):
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.68,2,
"...the order and composition of the two armies: that of the Lacedaemonians appeared to be the larger, but what the number was, either of the several contingents, or of the total on either side, I cannot pretend exactly to say, for the secrecy of the government did not allow the strength of the Lacedaemonian army to be known, and the numbers on the other side were thought to be exaggerated by the vanity natural to men when speaking of their own forces. However, the following calculation may give some idea of the Lacedaemonian numbers..."
Thucydides also mentions the secrecy of Spartan society in Book 2.39.1 (xenelasia, described below as 'alien acts', denotes a policy of keeping out foreigners), attributing words to a rousing speech by Pericles:
History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 2.39.1-2,
"...'if we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. In proof of this it may be noticed that the Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone, but bring with them all their confederates; while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbor, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes..."
I totally agree with your line of thinking Howard: many reputable historians have differed on sub-topics etc, and some have been more heavily accepted than others. No person is infallible in any field with his/her supreme endeavor. But I am certain that, though I cannot prove it with indubitability, people like Paul Cartledge and John F. Lazenby (John K. Anderson merits attention) are cognizant of all the obscurities and indefinite issues when attempting to figure things out through a perusal of the ancient texts as any of the aficionados out there who seem to display a more rigid attitude about what the truth is. But that hardly means we need to watch our 'ps and qs' if we questions their assessments. Forgive my sensitivity (and superfluousness), but I just begin to worry when a discussion takes on an atmosphere of what exactly ancient etymological declensions may or may not mean. I am totally behind the issue of evidence when it is clearly an entailment to conclude something proof-positive: look at the debates we often read concerning the stirrup in Europe. With all the in-depth hypotheses about what horsemen amid melees can or cannot do, a belief that a European stirrup in common use before, say, the 7th and 8th centuries A.D., could have been a perishable item before the iron rings appeared (thus rationalizing away that there is not even an iota of physical evidence, stirrups still existed at an earlier time), and that the Huns must have had them to achieve what they did on horses. They had rigid tree-saddles (frames of wood) and smaller mounts, which was better for horse-archery and the execution of more force in weapons thrusting than the , the bottom line should be that, without one shred of physical or literary evidence coupled with the Romans' forte for applied science, the stirrup could not have existed on the Danube (and soon further west) before the Avars (traditional) arrived with them in the later half 6th century A.D (the stirrup in western Europe first appear on record with Saint Beatus' original Commentaria In Apocalypsin, c. 776 A.D.). Ancient horsemen could not effectuate what Medieval Knights could with a charge, let alone what the Polish-Lithuanian husaria could achieve in the 1600s, by which time the pear-shaped stirrups and prick spurs where in use. But adept horsemen, those growing up fighting in an equestrian society, could fight and maneuver on horseback without stirrups better than many seem to suggest they could. Actually, Tacitus seemingly reveals that Sarmatians, wielding their vaunted kontoi (a cavalry lance needing both hands for use), had success against standing infantry with their cavalry charges: he writes, 'when they charge in squadrons, hardly any line can stand against them', amid the tense events for Rome in Moesia, in c. 69 A.D. (Histories, Book 1.79). Sorry, I'm deviating.
Regarding the important issue of Xenophon's comment:
OK. Perhaps I get too hasty and verbose amid my enthusiasm. I did fine-tune some my first post, including a comment which one could have interpreted it as my opinion that the 'so called aides of the polemarch' was a description for the royal-bodyguard. No, I never thought that, and my apologies if that affected the above assessment. Incidentally, there is a † in there directly before ??? from your quote of the ancient text. Perhaps a footnote explaining variances?
Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 6.4.13-14,
"...when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time. But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way..."
The Loeb Classical Library's ancient Greek translation to the above indeed has ??? placed 'tent-companions, and Cleonymus' (as the English displays). But ??? is also there in the Greek before 'then the royal bodyguard' (??? ?? ??? ??????) and 'the so-called aides of the polemarch' (??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????????). The Oxford Classical Texts (overall, on par with Loeb as the best source material for our ancient history) does hold with ?? ?????, which was found in the famous manuscripts of the Renaissance (MSS.); but this would mean 'the horses' fell back before the Theban attack upon the Spartan right wing, which doesn't make sense because the cavalry were already vanquished (????? means 'horses, and ?????? is the term for cavalry, in the generic sense). Moreover, the royal bodyguard themselves could not have been on horses, given Xenophon's prior statements in his account that the Spartan cavalry 'were exceedingly poor at that time', followed by, 'it was those who were least strong of body and least ambitious who were mounted on the horses' (6.4.10-11). Now, a footnote does appear in the Loeb Classical Library next to the word ?????? (Xenophon, II, Hellenica: Books 5-7, pg. 170), illustrating that these translators are more thorough and professional than some rigid critics may suggest.
Footnote 1: ??? ?????? Stephanus; ??? ????? MSS.: ???????? Kel.
Karl Schenkl (a top 19th century scholar) suggest that the MSS. ??? ????? conceals some Doric technical term. 'Stephanus' in the footnote refers to Robert Estienne (Robertus Stephanus or Roberti Stephani), the renowned printer and classical scholar of the 16th century, who laid down the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. 'MSS.' is the abbreviation for the manuscripts which Loeb tells us six recognized major ones of the Hellenica were extant by the first half of 15th century. 'Kel.' is Otto Keller, another 19th century scholar; it reads in the preface of the Loeb Hellenica (Vol. I, covering books I-IV; no separate preface exists in Vol. II, which covers our material here, thus the below applies to Vol. II as well), pg. xiv,
"...The present edition adopts the text of Keller, all departures therefrom, as well as important emendations made or accepted by Keller, being maintained in the critical notes..."
Thus, Keller, it seems, accepted the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. I feel, therefore, on whole, the below quoted comment bites the dust, specifically for its proclaimed cut and dry manner of veracity, as well as being too sweeping and all-inclusive. That's a prerogative, though.
Why would early 20th century translators, etc., be bias in favor of the Spartan royal bodyguard on such a vast scale, so as to emend the original texts because they intrinsically desire the Hippeis to be presented in a way which glorifies them out of relative proportion? That was a rhetorical question. Howard (and everyone else), last thing (for now), in relation to the Mothaces (you mentioned Lysander). Here is the main ancient historiographic mention of them; we get a clearer picture of their status than we do the Hypomeiones, thus I don't agree that it can be stated so easily that Polybius' comment 'could work equally as well for a Hypomeiones'. This reeks of hypocrisy, from one who's criticizing others about assumptions which have no solid basis. Sorry everyone, I just get a little sensitive over these things. Perhaps the distinction of the Hypomeiones did not preclude those who distinguished themselves from becoming a mercenary Captain-General, but because we do have a passage supporting this for the Mothaces and not for the Hypomeiones, whose only reference describes them as a 'lesser Spartiatae' (hupomeiôn), and in that context they are revealed as some of whom were involved in the attempted coup in 397 B.C. (Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 3.3.6).
We read from Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, Book 6.271e-f, (relaying data from the 25th Book of Phylarchus' Histories, written in the 3rd century B.C., also a source of Polybius),
"...But the Mothaces are foster-brothers of Lacedaemonian citizens. For each of the sons of the citizens has one or two, or even more foster-brothers, according as their circumstances admit. The Mothaces are freemen then, but still not Lacedaemonian citizens; but they share all the education which is given to the free citizens; and they say that Lysander, who defeated the Athenians in the naval battle, was one of that class, having been made a citizen on account of his pre-eminent valour..."
What did I conclude? Probably more tangled uncertainties
Thanks, James :
I feel Hippeis should be capitalized, and hippeis, with regards to a horsemen in a generic sense (in the ancient Greek world), should not. But that's based from an English language perspective. Every similar pattern cannot be the same: describing an ancient Greek as Laconic surely differentiates than calling him/her 'laconic'. Because a/the Spartan royal guard (purposely not capitalized for now, the martial unit of this thread topic) were presumably at first mounted (and/or on chariots, perhaps) then on foot as they expanded (presumably), the term hippeis can potentially be inter-changeable, just as the larger 'problem' with an often equivocal use of 'Sparta' (??????) and 'Lacedaemon' (??????????) (Lacedaemonians could be classified as Spartans, but Spartans not as Lacedaemonians). Simply put, as best I can and as to how I opine it, the Hippeis of Sparta was indeed the name of the 'Horsemen' who constituted the picked 300 of the elite royal-bodyguard; the name stood despite the fact they began to operate on foot by the Classical Age. These indeed were the 'Horsemen' mentioned by Herodotus (The Histories, Book 1.67), and that they could perform other tasks other than always being at one of the king's side is not proof that other specialized units existed which were divorced from their institution.
One can accuse me pedantic rationalizing, but, in basically defining an army's Royal Guard, I sustain Wikipedia's description, before they start discussing details and the Royal Guards of various states and eras:
"A Royal Guard describes any group of military bodyguard, soldiers or retainers responsible for the protection of a royal person, such as a King or Queen. They are often an elite unit of the regular armed forces and may maintain special rights or privileges."
Quote:An excellent response James which has added much to this interesting debate
Thanks Howard, and it's my pleasure. We actually have more in common than Sparta and NYC - I was born Jamey Johnston :o
Wirral is near Liverpool, no? I don't want to look up stuff right now (actually, I probably will by opening multiple tabs any minute). Yes, the Battle of Brunanburh - Athelstan the Glorious. As you see by current surname, my mother married a Scotsman. Tom, my step-dad, often spoke of the Kingdom of Alba with pride! We won't rub it in, eh?
I don't have a rigid problem with the challenging of academics, but I don't feel it should be done for the intrinsic 'challenge' of it (no accusation here from me, just sharing my beliefs on the issue), and I feel we should be a little extra sure we understand fully what they're stating, and check for a larger context. For example, Involving Xenophon's pivotal but brief phraseology in Book 6.4.14 on the Hippeis, one historian emphasized that Xenophon doesn't mention the Hippeis as being 'part of the army which was around the king' (peri ton basilea; he/she provided these modern Greek translations) and neither among 'those who were fighting in front of him' (peri ton Kleombroton to prôton ekratoun têi machêi), both terms used in Book 6.4.12-13. I apologize, as it's good trivia for our topic here, but I don't remember the author or title (I can dig it out); his/her angle was dealing with some aspects of Greek warfare, and in the writer's chapter dealing with the Spartans at Mantinea (using Thucydides' account of that battle as a gauge for Spartan military units, which is the part from the great ancient historian which we can indeed form a good gauge on much of the Spartan army). But the writer didn't bother mentioning that the very next section (14 of Book 6.4) reads 'then the royal bodyguard' (kai hoi men hippoi) as among those who were stymied by the Theban forward surge after or around the same time some noted figures he mentioned fell; even if he/she doesn't agree with the translations and emendation concerning the term hippeis for the royal bodyguard, why not even mention it amid the argument? I would argue that in three juxtaposing and brief references to 'men around the king', it shouldn't be identified who exactly they were in all three phrases. A major battle is being described, and it is irrefutable that the Spartan royal bodyguard (whoever they truly were and what they were specifically assigned) were among those who fell back under the famous Theban push under Epaminondas' tactical designs.
Quote:...Xenophon refers to Agesilaus' "doryphoroi", lit : 'spearmen', used to refer traditionally to a bodyguard ( Xen. Hell. IV.5.8) ...
Well, this is what the Loeb Classical Library (Xenophon, Hellenica, Vol. I, Books 1-4, translated by Carleton L. Brownson) reads verbatim, Book 4.5.8,
"...When they came running together, he [Agesilaus] told the rest of them to follow along as quickly as possible after swallowing what they could - for they had not yet breakfasted - while he himself with his tent companions went on ahead breakfastless. And the spearmen of his body-guard, fully armed, accompanied him with all speed, he leading the way and his tent companions following after him. But when he had already passed the hot springs and come to the plain of Lechaeum, three horsemen rode up and reported that the bodies of the dead had been recovered. When he heard this, he gave the order to ground arms, and after resting the army for a short time, led it back again to the Heraeum; and on the following day he exposed the prisoners and captured property for sale..."
The original Greek text, to reiterate from my first post, clearly reads ????????? (doruphoroi in the modern Greek, from Perseus.tufts) for the spearmen of his body-guard. Forgive my nitpicking, but the wording is 'spearmen of his body-guard', thus a part of it which, quite possibly, Agesilaus allocated to accompany him with 'all speed'. Of course, I need to be wary with such an assessment for an army which was not one of intricate combined arms. Wouldn't all the body-guard be spearmen, in an army of hoplites? Clealry, these spearmen denote those wielding a dory. As for the contingent of hundred in Herodotus (The Histories, Book 6.56), that could merely be the contingent of one of the three Dorian tribes, and not necessarily a different 'entity' from the Hippeis, if you will.
Basically, I feel an overlooked and specific issue which should be added on to the acknowledged overall problem of the nebulousness of perusing ancient historiography, is that, in the case of Sparta, one affecting factor as to why we haven't been availed any deep information about the infrastructure of the Spartan army is for a basic reason which can be identified. The practiced skill and experience of the Spartan soldier was well known to other Greeks, who bore witness to the Spartan army. But unlike with the reign of Philip II of Macedon, in which the contemporary and voluminous accounts of Ephorus, Theopompus, Marsyas of Pella, and Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus did not survive for us (the titled and fragmentary nature of their works reveals their works would without any doubt shed enormous light on the paucity of material we have to study the great Macedonian), the accounts of Thucydides (particularly his remarks on Spartan army composition at Sphacteria and Mantinea) and Xenophon, of which both we have in full, still leaves uncertainties, especially when a debate is triggered on a thematic basis which is centered around entailed detail to get a good picture. Ancient writers, even the likes of Hieronymus of Cardia and Polybius, were not equipped to write military history as a modern war correspondent could; when one Willem vanden Velde (the Elder) waded out in a boat and sketched his observations of the naval clash between England and the United Provinces (1653) off the island of Texel, and subsequently reported his inspectionss to the Staten-Generaal, perhaps the first 'war correspondent' in a modern sense was born (at the time he was simply the official artist of the Dutch fleet). Most ancient writers didn't pay as much attention to military details (as with economics, etc.) as we may wish, but in the case of Sparta, it was a closed society; Thucydides tells us in his opening account of Mantinea (418 B.C.):
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.68,2,
"...the order and composition of the two armies: that of the Lacedaemonians appeared to be the larger, but what the number was, either of the several contingents, or of the total on either side, I cannot pretend exactly to say, for the secrecy of the government did not allow the strength of the Lacedaemonian army to be known, and the numbers on the other side were thought to be exaggerated by the vanity natural to men when speaking of their own forces. However, the following calculation may give some idea of the Lacedaemonian numbers..."
Thucydides also mentions the secrecy of Spartan society in Book 2.39.1 (xenelasia, described below as 'alien acts', denotes a policy of keeping out foreigners), attributing words to a rousing speech by Pericles:
History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 2.39.1-2,
"...'if we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. In proof of this it may be noticed that the Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone, but bring with them all their confederates; while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbor, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes..."
I totally agree with your line of thinking Howard: many reputable historians have differed on sub-topics etc, and some have been more heavily accepted than others. No person is infallible in any field with his/her supreme endeavor. But I am certain that, though I cannot prove it with indubitability, people like Paul Cartledge and John F. Lazenby (John K. Anderson merits attention) are cognizant of all the obscurities and indefinite issues when attempting to figure things out through a perusal of the ancient texts as any of the aficionados out there who seem to display a more rigid attitude about what the truth is. But that hardly means we need to watch our 'ps and qs' if we questions their assessments. Forgive my sensitivity (and superfluousness), but I just begin to worry when a discussion takes on an atmosphere of what exactly ancient etymological declensions may or may not mean. I am totally behind the issue of evidence when it is clearly an entailment to conclude something proof-positive: look at the debates we often read concerning the stirrup in Europe. With all the in-depth hypotheses about what horsemen amid melees can or cannot do, a belief that a European stirrup in common use before, say, the 7th and 8th centuries A.D., could have been a perishable item before the iron rings appeared (thus rationalizing away that there is not even an iota of physical evidence, stirrups still existed at an earlier time), and that the Huns must have had them to achieve what they did on horses. They had rigid tree-saddles (frames of wood) and smaller mounts, which was better for horse-archery and the execution of more force in weapons thrusting than the , the bottom line should be that, without one shred of physical or literary evidence coupled with the Romans' forte for applied science, the stirrup could not have existed on the Danube (and soon further west) before the Avars (traditional) arrived with them in the later half 6th century A.D (the stirrup in western Europe first appear on record with Saint Beatus' original Commentaria In Apocalypsin, c. 776 A.D.). Ancient horsemen could not effectuate what Medieval Knights could with a charge, let alone what the Polish-Lithuanian husaria could achieve in the 1600s, by which time the pear-shaped stirrups and prick spurs where in use. But adept horsemen, those growing up fighting in an equestrian society, could fight and maneuver on horseback without stirrups better than many seem to suggest they could. Actually, Tacitus seemingly reveals that Sarmatians, wielding their vaunted kontoi (a cavalry lance needing both hands for use), had success against standing infantry with their cavalry charges: he writes, 'when they charge in squadrons, hardly any line can stand against them', amid the tense events for Rome in Moesia, in c. 69 A.D. (Histories, Book 1.79). Sorry, I'm deviating.
Regarding the important issue of Xenophon's comment:
Quote:...Here the word used is "?????" here not "??????" unless Perseus has it wrong. Note the word "Kai" in greek which means "and/also". Thus the above should read:
'But when Deinon the polemarch died, and/also Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and/also Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, and/also then the royal bodyguard, and/also the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass'...
OK. Perhaps I get too hasty and verbose amid my enthusiasm. I did fine-tune some my first post, including a comment which one could have interpreted it as my opinion that the 'so called aides of the polemarch' was a description for the royal-bodyguard. No, I never thought that, and my apologies if that affected the above assessment. Incidentally, there is a † in there directly before ??? from your quote of the ancient text. Perhaps a footnote explaining variances?
Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 6.4.13-14,
"...when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time. But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way..."
The Loeb Classical Library's ancient Greek translation to the above indeed has ??? placed 'tent-companions, and Cleonymus' (as the English displays). But ??? is also there in the Greek before 'then the royal bodyguard' (??? ?? ??? ??????) and 'the so-called aides of the polemarch' (??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????????). The Oxford Classical Texts (overall, on par with Loeb as the best source material for our ancient history) does hold with ?? ?????, which was found in the famous manuscripts of the Renaissance (MSS.); but this would mean 'the horses' fell back before the Theban attack upon the Spartan right wing, which doesn't make sense because the cavalry were already vanquished (????? means 'horses, and ?????? is the term for cavalry, in the generic sense). Moreover, the royal bodyguard themselves could not have been on horses, given Xenophon's prior statements in his account that the Spartan cavalry 'were exceedingly poor at that time', followed by, 'it was those who were least strong of body and least ambitious who were mounted on the horses' (6.4.10-11). Now, a footnote does appear in the Loeb Classical Library next to the word ?????? (Xenophon, II, Hellenica: Books 5-7, pg. 170), illustrating that these translators are more thorough and professional than some rigid critics may suggest.
Footnote 1: ??? ?????? Stephanus; ??? ????? MSS.: ???????? Kel.
Karl Schenkl (a top 19th century scholar) suggest that the MSS. ??? ????? conceals some Doric technical term. 'Stephanus' in the footnote refers to Robert Estienne (Robertus Stephanus or Roberti Stephani), the renowned printer and classical scholar of the 16th century, who laid down the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. 'MSS.' is the abbreviation for the manuscripts which Loeb tells us six recognized major ones of the Hellenica were extant by the first half of 15th century. 'Kel.' is Otto Keller, another 19th century scholar; it reads in the preface of the Loeb Hellenica (Vol. I, covering books I-IV; no separate preface exists in Vol. II, which covers our material here, thus the below applies to Vol. II as well), pg. xiv,
"...The present edition adopts the text of Keller, all departures therefrom, as well as important emendations made or accepted by Keller, being maintained in the critical notes..."
Thus, Keller, it seems, accepted the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. I feel, therefore, on whole, the below quoted comment bites the dust, specifically for its proclaimed cut and dry manner of veracity, as well as being too sweeping and all-inclusive. That's a prerogative, though.
Quote:...This is the problem. That assumption, based on next to nothing has then biased all translations having to do with the elite unit...
Why would early 20th century translators, etc., be bias in favor of the Spartan royal bodyguard on such a vast scale, so as to emend the original texts because they intrinsically desire the Hippeis to be presented in a way which glorifies them out of relative proportion? That was a rhetorical question. Howard (and everyone else), last thing (for now), in relation to the Mothaces (you mentioned Lysander). Here is the main ancient historiographic mention of them; we get a clearer picture of their status than we do the Hypomeiones, thus I don't agree that it can be stated so easily that Polybius' comment 'could work equally as well for a Hypomeiones'. This reeks of hypocrisy, from one who's criticizing others about assumptions which have no solid basis. Sorry everyone, I just get a little sensitive over these things. Perhaps the distinction of the Hypomeiones did not preclude those who distinguished themselves from becoming a mercenary Captain-General, but because we do have a passage supporting this for the Mothaces and not for the Hypomeiones, whose only reference describes them as a 'lesser Spartiatae' (hupomeiôn), and in that context they are revealed as some of whom were involved in the attempted coup in 397 B.C. (Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 3.3.6).
We read from Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, Book 6.271e-f, (relaying data from the 25th Book of Phylarchus' Histories, written in the 3rd century B.C., also a source of Polybius),
"...But the Mothaces are foster-brothers of Lacedaemonian citizens. For each of the sons of the citizens has one or two, or even more foster-brothers, according as their circumstances admit. The Mothaces are freemen then, but still not Lacedaemonian citizens; but they share all the education which is given to the free citizens; and they say that Lysander, who defeated the Athenians in the naval battle, was one of that class, having been made a citizen on account of his pre-eminent valour..."
What did I conclude? Probably more tangled uncertainties
Thanks, James :
"A ship in harbor is safe - but that is not what ships are built for."
James K MacKinnon
James K MacKinnon
