hypaspists or not

[mdroberts18]

Diodorus in the two battles against Antigonus, Paraitacene and Gabiene, is very clear that in Eumenes army there are two different infantry units of about 3000 each ,the famouse the silver shields and the second group he calls hypaspists.There is much written about the silver shields and the general consensus is they are the same as the units refferd to under Philip and Alexander as hypaspists whoes name was changed when Alexander gave then silver armour before the indian invasion.Who then are these other hypaspists .As far as i know they are not refferd to again outside the battles and yet their position on the far right of the line at Paraitacene suggest they were even higher status than the silver shields as that was the position of honour.Does anybody know anything written about thse particular hypaspists .It is only these hypaspists i am interested in ,the silver shileds/Alexandrine hypaspists i know about as also later Hellenistic troops that are called the same .But if anybody has anything about the Eumenes hypaspist who fough alongside the silver shields i would appreciate it.Thanks looking forward to replies mike

[Paralus]

I don't have the time necessary to fully cover this: off on holidays for five days.

In short, the hypaspists referred to in Eumenes' army are native troops. In the time immediately following the death of Alexander the Diadochoi raised their own armies and each adopted the nomenclature of the fast fading Argead army. Each, when on horseback, had his agema of his 'companion' cavalry and many also had their own hypaspists.

The Argyraspids (Silver Shields) were indeed Philip's and Alexander's hypaspists. They had adopted the name of Argyraspids following their re-arming in India. After Alexander died they insisted on the corporate title to differentiate themselves from the "pretenders" using the term hypaspist.

Alexander, prior to his death, had raised a native hypaspist corps and one he termed "Silver Shields" as well as a new native "royal regiment" (agema) for the Companions. The sources make plain that these are Asian levies armed and trained in the Macedonian fashion and were to be the hypaspists' epigoni - 'successors'. This resulted in the near mutiny of his army at Opis.

Thus Eumenes' hypapspists were Persian (or native) hypaspists: the best of the Asians armed and trained in the Macedonian fashion. Hence they are posted alongside the deadly old bastards of Alexander's hypaspist corps, the Argyraspids. The reputation of these blokes was such that Antigonus, moving to check Eumenes' growing power, attempted to dislodge them from Eumenes' service rather than face them in the field. Ditto Ptolemy, Seleucus (who'd commanded the royal hypaspists under Alexander) and Piethon. Paraetecene and, even more so, Gabiene showed exactly what this corps had become capable of.

It is doubtful that the native hypaspists were anywhere near as deadly.

[Drungarios]

Can you cite any sources (ancient or modern) that support your assertion that Eumenes' hypaspists were natives?

[Paralus]

Can you cite any sources (ancient or modern) that support your assertion that Eumenes' hypaspists were natives?

I'm literally walking out the door with kids, wife and boat in tow. Back on Sunday when I will address this. Thought to post this so as not to appear rude.

Short answer is yes. Meantime, there was only a single hypaspist unit in the Macedonian army with an agema (the Royal Hypaspists) - one only. It was chosen for on strength, skill and merit. At A's death there was still only one - save the Asian units he had prepared to replace his superannuated units.

More when back on Sunday!

[Drungarios]

Sorry my question caught you at a bad time. Hopefully your trip is a pleasant one.

After a quick glance at my shelves, it seems that many modern historians have ignored or sidestepped the issue of hypaspists in Successor armies. A.B. Bosworth is one of the few exceptions. In his work, "The Legacy of Alexander" he advances essentially the same idea as you, albeit in a more cautious fashion. Though his claims are plausible, he himself notes that they constitute a break from the generally accepted tradition.

In defining the composition of the Eumenid army, Duncan Head's characterization of these later hypaspists in his "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars", may come closest to the mark. Reflecting the uncertainty and vagueness of the ancient sources, Head proposes several options for the origin of Eumenes' hypaspists, including loyal veterans from an earlier campaign or a mixed unit of satrapal guardsmen. Whether or not any of these theories are accurate, one problem remains with the native hypaspist concept. If Eumenes' hypaspists were in fact a contingent of natives serving as hypaspists in the phalanx, one wonders why Diodoros did not draw special attention to them, as he does elsewhere when dealing with native troops trained in the Macedonian fashion.

Unfortunately, as you mentioned earlier, much of this discussion is based on an unknowable quantity; the exact meaning of the term "hypaspist" in any given situation.

Without engaging in too much fist-wringing at the paucity of ancient literature dealing with the Hellenistic period, this issue seems to boil down to simple preference and supposition, due to the distinct lack of source material. I often wonder if any such confusion would remain if only Hieronymos of Kardia's work had survived or if Diodoros had written with a bit more precision and clarity.

[Timotheus]

Not to sidetrack but do we have any information on what happened to the Silver Shields?

I know they one several battles during the sucession wars but then I just read that Antigonus who tired of these "truculent old men who had loyalty to no one" ordered that they be assigned every dangerous duty possible to destroy them. Sibrtius sends them off to Afghanistan.

At this point they disapear from history.

Anyone know anything more or can point to a source that has some more information?

[Drungarios]

Unfortunately there is not much more information to be had about the Silver Shields. In the above-mentioned "Legacy of Alexander," Bosworth reviews the ancient sources and accurately recognizes Antigonos' dispersal of the veterans as a reassignment in smaller contingents spread across the high-risk eastern satrapies rather than as a vindictive means of eradication.

Abandoned by the ancient sources, Bosworth then closes his treatment of the Silver Shields with a series of plausible, but completely speculative claims about their subsequent activities.

[Timotheus]

" Bosworth reviews the ancient sources and accurately recognizes Antigonos' dispersal of the veterans as a reassignment in smaller contingents spread across the high-risk eastern satrapies rather than as a vindictive means of eradication.

I will have to look into what he wrote because I fail to see how this could be determined from ancient sources anywhere near well enough to make such a statement.

[Drungarios]

On the face of it you are correct in noting that the sources do not explicitly support Bosworth's interpretation that the Silver Shields were carefully redeployed rather than rashly destroyed, but in this situation it is necessary to filter out the bias in the ancient texts and use the subsequent facts as a guideline to be expanded upon.

Bosworth's statement is based on simple military and political logic as well as the textual derivation of Diodoros' work from the work of Eumenes' friend, officer and probable relation, Hieronymos of Kardia.

Simply put, the Silver Shields, despite their unruly nature, were a well-trained and effective force of veteran soldiers that Antigonos was unlikely to simply destroy out of spite or fear. With his expanding realm in turmoil following Eumenes' campaign, Antigonos had great need of highly trained professional soldiers to stiffen the garrisons in the tenuously-held eastern satrapies. By splitting up the mutinous Silver Shields, Antigonos was able to reinforce the small armies of the governors of his fringe provinces while eliminating the threat the group posed to his rule if left together. With this move Antigonos achieved the virtual annihilation of the unit (at least in terms of their "political" power) as described in Diodoros, albeit in a more crafty and useful way than simply ordering their posting on dangerous and difficult assignments until none of them were left.

The other basis for Bosworth's statement comes from an analysis of the influence of Hieronymos of Kardia's work on that of Diodoros. As the primary source for this period, Hieronymos was excellently placed (often within the events he describes) to report happenings, but poorly situated to interpret them free of bias. Having served Eumenes loyally throughout much of that general's post-Perdikkan career, Hieronymos accompanied him on his eastern campaign until he was wounded and captured at the climactic battle of Gabiene. There the historian saw the Silver Shields turn against Eumenes and offer up the protector of the Argead house (not to mention his friend and relative) to Antigonos to be executed. Needless to say, Hieronymos' view of the Silver Shields was a dark one and it is completely reasonable to conclude that he (mis)interpreted Antigonos' far-flung redeployment of the unit as an intentionally fatal punishment for their untrustworthiness.

Though Bosworth's conclusion still involves a fair amount of speculation, it is of a much firmer sort than what is normally seen when dealing with this poorly-documented period.

[Timotheus]

So its a well thought out guess as opposed to a wildly romantic guess. I know what you mean and it does make sense.

My guess would that it would be a combination of both. Send them all over to help out the situation and by that act destroy their cohesion which made them so dangerous.

[Paralus]

Righto, where to begin?

Any discussion of which corps of infantry was which during the first two Diadoch wars will come down, inevitably, to the numbers of Macedonians available for these wars. These numbers, surprisingly for some, were not huge. Joseph has pointed out Bosworth’s Legacy of Alexander: I would suggest that this work is of immense value in this regard if nothing else. Without reproducing the professor’s chapter, the simple answer is: some 11,500 in Kilikia with Krateros; some 8-10,000 odd remaining to the “royal armyâ€

[Paralus]

There is one other possibility for Eumenes to gain Macedonian troops: the battle of the Coprates River in high summer 317. Here Antigonus has managed to transport some 10,000 troops across the Coprates by the time Eumenes falls upon his forces. Eumenes attacks with 4,000 foot and 1,300 horse and routs the Antigonids who are in no order. At battle's end, some four thousand surrender. We are not told what became of them but it would make sense to imagine they were absorbed in some fashion.

The fly in this ointment is that of the 10,000 Antigonid troops Diodorus (19.18.4-6) describes 6,000 as foragers ("who were in the habit of crossing in groups in search of forage") and only 3,000 as "foot soldiers". The "Macedonians" resisted but were, along with the rest, driven to the river where many were drowned. In the end some 4,000 who could not swim, surrendered. We have no way of knowing how many of these were Macedonians. The one certainty would be not all 4,000 or even all 3,000 "foot soldiers".

They would be most unlikely to become hypaspists in Eumenes' army. And, were any Macedonians promoted to such, one might think the Silver Shileds would have something to say about it.