Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hippeis, not Hippies
#16
My sort of music Howard, my sort of music. Days of hair long and with colour. Days of hair - period!

I'm not necessarily certain the Spartans will have marched to war to Led Zeppelin. Then again...

Stairway to Olympus
Boogie With Melas Zomas


Of course, No Quarter will have been the anthem; the helots were well acqauinted with The Battle of Evermore and Dazed and Confused the soundtrack to Leuktra.

I must write Going to Plataea:

Goin' to Plataea with seven helots at my back
Someone told me there's a barbaroi out there...
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#17
Quote:
Quote:Hippeis may well have been the Greek term for cavalry but at Sparta the term had developed into something more specific


Undeniable. But I think you miss the point Stephanos and I have both been making. There are Hippeis or Equites or whatever the local derivation all over the place because only the elite of mediterranean society can afford to rear horses and arm them for war. Thus the hippo/horse reference denotes only the ability to afford one. Grenadiers spring from units of semi-suicidal men who took up the most dangerous tasks during sieges and were treated as elites because of it. Other units are raised specifically as guards whose prime focus lay with their royal patron.

No, I don't think so Paul. I don't even necessarily disagree with you or Stefanos in general. I just put a distinct emphasis on the role of this unit as perhaps being more specific. Even if it were not carved in stone (or written on papyrus) by the Spartans (sadly not leaving us notes to compare) or anybody else for that matter, that the Hippeis were a Royal Bodyguard - I think it is clear that they were one de facto. Think of three important conflicts when we hear of them - with the king - at Thermopylai 480 [size=85:7cb338bt]BC[/size]; at 1st Mantinea 418 [size=85:7cb338bt]BC[/size]; at Leuktra 371 [size=85:7cb338bt]BC[/size]. They are specifically surrounding and fighting with their king - with Leonidas I; with Agis II; with Kleombrotos I. The fact that a Spartan king was not unique (a spare at home) and that he was not autocratic and absolute like later monarchs who had such guards, doesn't mean he was ill-deserving of one. There is a clear paradox at work here which is difficult to resolve. A Spartan king could have his own troops criticise him - yelling at him from the ranks; or even have a sub-commander disobey him (Plataia (the Regent being much the same role)); and even be recalled and humiliated for any lack of performance - but still be honoured and revered as a direct descendant of the gods. My point about the Grenadiers is that the name survived (and still does) long after the specific role was dispensed with.

Quote:The Spartan Hippeis surely originated as the first type, from horse owners, then lost their horses, but retained their status as elites. The question is whether they would ever have seen themselves as the last.

I don't disagree with any of that, but ultimately it really doesn't matter. The 300 Knights were clearly originally (and perhaps continuously) from aristocratic backgrounds. The point is not so much they could afford horses or supply them or whatever - it is that their original role was lost but the name survived. They certainly saw themselves as an elite. Those not lucky enough to be selected either took the philosophical view that they were happy the city had 300 men better than themselves - or - they considered themselves at war with the hippagretai for overlooking them in favour of those who were selected.

Quote:Also, we must be careful with placing too much emphasis on the number 300. The one time we see 300 specifically tied to the King's life, or loss theireof, they are not the Hippeis. The 300 at the battle of champions may not have been either as you noted. And the number may not be so rare even outside of Greece, Gideon fought the Midionites with 300 elite men.

Well, as I say I have some views on the numbers myself, but we do hear of them at Leuktra (also with a dying king) as well as Thermopylai, and as for the latter I am not convinced that the fact that Leonidas replaced the younger men with older ones (who had sons) means this second group were not still the Hippeis. After all, some of these men who had perhaps produced progeny might still have been under 30. We know men without sons were replaced, but that does not mean every single one of the original 300 in August 480 [size=85:7cb338bt]BC[/size] was replaced by another man.

Quote:Kings often took very few men with them, and we are told as noted above that 100 was the number on one occaision. IN assuming the 300 hippeis performed this function are we obscuring a 100 man unit? Were I a Spartan king, with what I know of Spartan politics, my guard would be the members of my Phiditia and a core group most loyal to me, with a sprinkling of olympic winners now and then.

As I have said many times, I think the 300 were 100 x 3. The tripartite nature of Spartan numerology cannot be underestimated. The Gerousia had 30 permanent sitting members and I suspect these senators were drawn 10 from each Dorian sub-tribe. That would be 10 from the Dymanes - 10 from the Pamphyloi - and 8 plus the 2 kings from the Hylleis. The fact that the kings belonged to a royal phiditia rather than a regular homoioi one, does not mean that they necessarily chose their battle companions from that group, although they may well have been incorporated (politically) by the hippagretai in their selection process. It is therefore entirely conceivable that the 300 Hippeis were formed of three 100 man companies from each of those Dorian sub-tribes. There is a significance to the H, D & P sub-tribes/clans which I seem to be somewhat alone in recognising here. And also surely the highest honour that any soldier might anticipate, is to be picked to fight alongside and protect his king? I suppose finally, that the royal bodyguard might well have been composed of 300 Hippeis plus whomever else the king chose to have along that day. We hear of the Hippagretai as the selectors of the 300 - but these 3 individuals may well have doubled up as the 3 Polemarchs for the Hippeis - each one leading his own 100 men - the Ephors perhaps having specifically selected 1 hippagretes from each clan. They may well have been amongst his mess companions on campaign, alongside the Olympic victors et al.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#18
Quote:As I have said many times, I think the 300 were 100 x 3. The tripartite nature of Spartan numerology cannot be underestimated. The Gerousia had 30 permanent sitting members and I suspect these senators were drawn 10 from each Dorian sub-tribe. That would be 10 from the Dymanes - 10 from the Pamphyloi - and 8 plus the 2 kings from the Hylleis.

Quite. Xenophon, Hellenica 3.4.2:

Quote:Now while the Lacedaemonians were in a state of great excitement, and were gathering together their allies and taking counsel as to what they should do, Lysander, thinking that the Greeks would be far superior on the sea, and reflecting that the land force which went up country with Cyrus had returned safely, persuaded Agesilaus to promise, in case the Lacedaemonians would give him thirty Spartiatae, two thousand emancipated Helots, and a contingent of six thousand of the allies, to make an expedition to Asia.

Now, aside form the Lacedaemonians running about in a state excitement (for which read near panic) about an expedition almost certainly aimed at Egypt, the number is interesting: thirty rather than twenty or fifty.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#19
Great discussion, guys Big Grin we read amid the great son's reign of asthetairoi, argyraspids, and somatophylakes, all comprising foot and horse of the Agema, the 'Royal Guards'), but the crème de la crème of both arms were part of the Agema.

[Image: file.php?mode=view&id=6275&sid=774a77634...621f334371]

Above: this depiction of Spartan Hippeis ('bodyguards') comes from the work of Keravnos, one of twc.net's elite contributors. The laurel wreaths they wear atop their heads, however idiomatic, surely represents their established reputation (hence 'resting on one's laurels'). In the first test between the developing Macedonian army under Philip II against tough Greek hoplites in a set battle, fought in 352 B.C. off the Pagasetic Gulf, the battle involved Philip having his men wear laurel wreaths to signify their 'duty for Apollo' against the blasphemous Phocians and their allies; the Phocians had a few years prior appropriated the Delphic treasures (Apollo, of course, was the prophetic deity of the Delphic oracle, and he was always depicted with a laurel wreath on his head). Needless to state, such religious trappings to meet strategic ends was a part of Philip's cunning designs, but this was one main battle in which he displayed an Alexandrian resolve for total victory on the battlefield (it was in part certainly personal, as Onomarchus, the adept Phocian leader, had outwitted and battered Philip the year earlier). Consequently, the Phocian army was crushed in one of the largest battles ever fought in Greece, while the Athenian fleet, now offshore to aid the Phocians, could only watch helplessly. Anyway,The full post and wonderful amalgam of Spartan warrior classifications, shown in battle order, can be seen and read here. Regarding the laurel wreaths, I doubt that every soldier in the image was an Olympic winner (?).

Howard, I enjoyed your post over on my thread about Philip II of Macedon; indeed, it was an exudation of piecemeal writings which I had jotted down over time in my word documents, and certainly not easy to deal with in a discussion like this here; Paul's question is excellent because of his specificity - asking for the evidence which is scarce in direct identification, but, IMHO, pretty clear with extrapolations and emendations. However, I am loathe to arbitrarily do so without the support of professional scholarship, and even then make sure I feel it is cogent. Anyway, Howard, you mentioned that the Spartans were your favorite group, and your comments here reflect superior knowledge and deductive capacity (stock options will suffice if you haven't any liquid immediately available :lol: ). I am allured by the paradoxical element of Sparta, one that has attracted much moralizing in conjunction with the clear repugnant issue of her policy with her helot subjects. But Spartan military prowess was an organizational response to the reality of holding sway over a large population in an apartheid society. Amazingly hypocritical isn't it? The idea that the 'freedom' won against the Oriental despot in 480-479 B.C. was spearheaded by the elite soldiers (the '300' serving around the Agiad king Leonidas I in the archetype plight of heroism in 480 B.C.; the figure is surely a coincidence, as Leonidas' men were too old to be the Hippeis) of a state who basically perpetuated a modern interpretation of rigid strata and enslavement! The term utopia (???????) denotes 'no place', (perhaps revealing some allegory on the part of Thomas More's) has entered our delineation of a 'perfect' society, but the homonymy of eutopia seems more appropriate, as its derivative is the Greek ???????, or 'good', or 'well', 'place'. But between Plato and More, and Quakers and Shakers, etc., whatever distinctions should be applied, Sparta has come to represent the original utopia, and, naturally, it can never have been to signify anything analogous with liberal creativity and free expression. The connection was surely posited with a communal style, divorcing the concept from the practice, in Sparta's case one of hierarchical repression. The incredibly important legacy of Hellas needs no defense, and the two poleis who make the most noise amid the surviving historiography, Athens and Sparta, have handed us substantial traditions. Their governments were similar in that they were run by assemblies, but not so in an elective process, hence Athens being the traditional birthplace of d?mokratía. Spartan society was simple, with the primary focus on obedience and war for 'self-preservation'. Only through their system of slavery could the young men be free from household, industrial, and pastoral duties to assiduously focus on their required military training and duties. Young Spartan boys were trained to be warriors; young Spartan girls were reared to be the mothers of those warriors. Athenian life should be what we all prefer - a creative cynosure. In Athens, one could receive a great education and pursue many kinds of arts or sciences, and serving in the army or navy wasn't compulsory (at least by law), an element which leads many, IMHO, to be misled that Athenians soldiers were not as good as those from other states. The standing Athenian Hippeis (these were horsemen without variances) and Epilektoi (their crack footmen) were far from lacking any martial prowess. It's no coincidence that the greatest scholars of ancient Greece were Athenians, and if not, came to Athens to pursue the advancement of their work. The fact we know of no Spartans by name (other than their kings and higher leaders of war; the term 'Lacedaemonians' seems to be inter-changeable quite often) illustrates the collective society for the whole. Forgive me. The point, basically? Here:

Paul Cartledge, The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece, pgs. 24-25,

"...The image or mirage of Sparta is therefore at least ambivalent and double-faceted. Against the positive image of the Spartans' uplifting warrior ideal of collective self-sacrifice, emblematized in the Thermopylae story, has to be pitted their lack of high cultural achievement, their refusal for the most part of open government, both at home and abroad, and their brutally efficient suppression for several centuries of a whole enslaved Greek people..."

Professor Cartledge does not deify the Spartans nor demonize them. His balanced treatment with a topic many often neglect one overt aspect for the other (the Spartan warrior ethos and their reprehensible treatment of their helots) is what I feel we need from our tutors. There are many good books on Sparta, with Paul Cartledge the overall most reputable. I have seen Peter Connolly, Michael Whitby and Anton Powell (off the top of my head). But if you do not have or have access to John F. Lazenby's The Spartan Army, a paradigm of that very balance, you're missing out terribly. I hate to phrase it like that because the book is out of print, not readily available at bookstores and/or libraries, thus horridly expensive if one wants to buy it.

I spent just under $20 (US) in photo-copying the whole book (15 cents a page X 112 pgs. + some trial and error; two pages could be fitted for one copy. The book is 211 pgs., without the contents, preface, and bibliography); I had to obtain a 'special pass' to Columbia University's Butler Library (any infractions by me in the New York Public Library's system would have disqualified my visit!), after waiting a couple months for the book's return, to get a hold of it. One terrific feature of Lazenby's book is, his brilliant powers of deductive and inductive reasoning and analyses notwithstanding (albeit debatable with his final analysis), is that all the terms - 'hippeis', 'perioikoi', 'moroi', 'syssition', etc., etc. - are italicized, making a study, whether skimming along or a deep perusal, more streamlined. If anyone cannot obtain it and wants to, I'd be happy to do something along the lines of scanning pages, or even copying them to post or send somewhere. Anyone interested in the Spartan Army (its proposed organization, recruitment, training, and equipment) must have this book - even for the sake of becoming familiar with it so they can disagree with the hypotheses on a more thorough level. I'm using it right now as a my primary source for this post (and you all thought I may have been especially 'smart', eh?). If you have it, never mind - or let's use it, with others who have it, as a guide (as well as it's debatable issues regarding quantitative Spartan army strength). I Just had to run that by you directly, and for everyone else, as to my conviction. Lazenby's books offer the finest exegeses, if you will, on the great conflicts of the ancient world (Greco-Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War, and the first two Punic Wars).

[Image: file.php?mode=view&id=6278&sid=774a77634...621f334371]

Above: I live in New York City, close to Columbia University's Butler Library; I am not a student, hence cannot take anything from the library. I have yet to fail in finding some material I have looked for, whether journal articles or books (including Lazenby's The Spartan Army and the pioneering works of William K. Pritchett). But often when something is checked out, it's not going to be back soon! Can you make out the names along the entablature? Homer, Herodotus,...

Speaking of powers of deductive reasoning:

Quote:...Why three and why 300? It makes perfect sense if you think of the importance of the tripartite nature of the Dorian tribe. Although not referred to by many here - the Hylleis, Pamphyloi and Dymanes strata was still significant well into classical times. Although both kings' families were nominally from the Hylleis tribe - I think it would have been only fair and prudent to have equal representation within the Hippeis from each group. I assume the Olympic champions would have had guaranteed places when those selections took place.

Most quotes about them mention them fighting around their king. That's what a royal bodyguard does.

Ditto! Spot on! Great thinking, my friend. The 300 Hippeis are one of the more elusive aspects of the Spartan socio-military set up. The belief that a corps d'elite of 300 picked young Spartans called Hippeis formed a royal bodyguard who fought with the king in battle, and in a separate formation no less, is fairly general in the ancient historiography, but hugely accepted amid modern academia (RAT not excluded!). The theory rests on a handful of remarks in ancient writers, of which the most explicit may begin with Herodotus, which Stefanos initially referred to:

The Histories, Book 8.124.1-3, late 480 B.C.

"...The Greeks were too jealous to assign the prize and sailed away each to his own place, leaving the matter undecided; nevertheless, Themistocles was lauded, and throughout all of Hellas was deemed the wisest man by far of the Greeks. However, because he had not received from those that fought at Salamis the honor due to his preeminence, he immediately afterwards went to Lacedaemon in order that he might receive honor there. The Lacedaemonians welcomed him and paid him high honor. They bestowed on Eurybiades [the nominal admiral in command] a crown of olive as the reward of excellence and another such crown on Themistocles for his wisdom and cleverness. They also gave him the finest chariot in Sparta, and with many words of praise, they sent him home with the 300 picked men of Sparta who are called Knights* to escort him as far as the borders of Tegea. Themistocles was the only man of whom we know to whom the Spartans gave this escort..."

*The ancient Greek word for Herodotus' 300 'Knights' is ??????.

Quote:...The case is usually made indirectly. We know that the Spartan Kings did have a royal guard of some sort (100 "select men" according to Herodotus 5.56, who may be speaking of the early fifth century...
Absolutely, and of course you meant Book 6.56 of The Histories: '...when the armies go forth the kings go out first and return last; one hundred chosen men guard them in their campaigns...'. This was certainly an earlier time, where maybe only one hippagretes (we'll get to this function) was extant, or perhaps a couple who chose less than a hundred 'first ten-year classes' (cf. Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 4.5.14, in describing the orders given to the 'first ten year-classes' by their polemarch in the Battle of Lechaeum, fought in 390 B.C.) of young men. But maybe there were 300 Hippeis, and that Herodotus mentions 'a hundred picked men' who guarded the king on campaign in Book 6.56, yet mentions 300 of them in Books 1.67.5 and 8.124.3, could reflect a distinction between a 'Royal Guard' who fought 'about the king' in battle and a royal bodyguard in general (perhaps with the other Spartan king at the Court, etc.). In the Hellenica, Book 4.5.8, in writing of events in 390 B.C. in the Corinthian isthmus (Agesilaus II captured Oenoe, which is modern Oinoe, on the extending peninsula located on the north-western side of the Corinthian isthmus), Xenophon mentions the fully-armed ????????? of the king's 'body-guard' accompanying Agesilaus 'with all speed (kai hoi doruphoroi ta hopla echontes parêkolouthoun spoudêi), he leading the way and his tent companions following after him' (the 'tent companions' would have been the polemarchoi, etc.); Xenophon seems to be describing a particular group of soldiers, and in both this context regarding the 'spear-bearers' of the Guard, and that of 'the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass' at the Battle of Leuctra (...hippoi kai hoi sumphoreis tou polemarchou kaloumenoi hoi te alloi hupo tou ochlou ôthoumenoi anechôroun...) in Book 6.4.14, it is quite likely that the king's body-guard was not completely the same, though probably part of at times, as the Royal Guard. Notice hippoi in the modern Greek lexica for the narrative of Leuctra; remember, the Spartan cavalry were already gone; they had 'speedily been worsted' (...hoi hippeis sunebeblêkesan kai tachu hêttênto hoi tôn Lakedaimoniôn...).

On two occasions, we read of the respective numerical strength of morai being 'about 600', from Xenophon (amid the famous victory of Iphicrates with his peltastai; Hellenica, Book 4.5.12), and 500, from Diodorus (referring to Agesilaus II's Boeotian campaign in 377 B.C.; Bibliotheca Historica, Book 15.32.1). Diodorus made much use of Ephorus, and the 500 figure he gives as denoting the numerical strength of a Spartan mora indeed corroborates Plutarch's figure attested to Ephorus as being 500 (Life of Pelopidas, Ch. 17, at the backdrop of the irregular clash at Tegyra, in 375 B.C.). Other enumerations from Callisthenes (700 in a mora), Polybius (900 men in a mora), and Photios (1,000 or 500 in a mora) were, presumably, from different times and circumstances. Assuming that Diodorus obtained his figure of 500 from Ephorus, this can probably be sustained. But a larger picture is not very convincing:

Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, Book 15.32.1,

"...Agesilaus led forth his army and reached Boeotia accompanied by all the soldiers, amounting to more than 18,000, in which were the five divisions of Lacedaemonians. Each division contained 500 men. The company known as Sciritae amongst the Spartans is not drawn up with the rest, but has its own station with the king and it goes to the support of the sections that from time to time are in distress; and since it is composed of picked men, it is an important factor in turning the scale in pitched battles, and generally determines the victory. Agesilaus also had 1,500 cavalry*..."

*These 1,500 were almost certainly mounted mercenaries, in light of his incursion into Asia Minor nearly two decades prior. Of note, the proportion of 'Lacedaemonians' to the total figure of 18,000 for the army seems too low; this is part and parcel to John F. Lazenby's arguments that Spartan manpower became as depleted as some of the sources' figures for some individual campaigns suggest (though he often doubles the given figures, which in turn may be a stretch, too); more so, it was Sparta's loss of her league's reserves which figured into her decline, not to mention the adaptive military genius of Epaminondas and Pelopidas.

OK. Here we go. Howard mentioned the Skiritai (or Sciritae) in the same manner Diodorus did (probably the other way round chronologically :lol: ); the earliest literary mention of the Skiritai comes from Thucydides, who tells us of a division of 600 of them at the Battle of Mantinea of 418 B.C., in which they 'formed the left wing' of the Spartan army, a position to which in the Lacedaemonian army they have a peculiar and exclusive right' (History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.67-68). The left wing, of course, was the most threatened position of a hoplite phalanx; in a Spartan army, the crack troops were deployed on the right opposite the enemy left (presumably, their weaker spot before Epaminondas' discerning reforms). Thus, a proclivity for the opposing phalanxes to rotate counterclockwise was further aggravated by each hoplite's natural tendency to close up on his right neighbor to gain more protection from the left part of the neighbor's hoplon (or aspis, to avoid that semantic debate for now!). That Thucydides is the first to mention them is almost certainly academically nominal; the homelands of the Skiritai on the northern frontier of Sparta were under Spartan hegemony centuries prior (a rebellion did occur in the early 360s B.C., following the rise of Theban martial dominance over Sparta, consequently freeing them from Spartan predominance). Xenophon tells us that the Skiritai were placed as night sentinels 'outside the lines', and that 'the enemy is watched by cavalry from positions that command the widest outlook' (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Book 12.2-3). However, at the time of the Persian Wars the Peloponnesians had no significant cavalry for such operations, hence the Skiritai (the city of Sciros was near Tegea) were probably charged with all the 'specialized' duties. Moreover, amid his hypotheses of comparing Asiatic and Greek war methods, Xenophon compares the role of the Skiritai utilized by the Spartans to how the Assyrians employed their subject neighbors, the superb Hyrcanian cavalry: they were spared 'neither in hardships nor in dangers' (Cyropaedia, Book 4.2.1).

[Image: file.php?mode=view&id=6277&sid=774a77634...621f334371]

Above: a depiction from one Jim Carrozza (here) of a light infantryman from Skiritis. Nice hat! The Skiritae were subject to Sparta but 'free', similar in social status to the more general Periokoi ('dwellers around'); they were all mainly farmers and merchants who lacked the full citizenship of the Homoioi (which included the vaunted Spartiatai). They lived in villages and towns in the less fertile land of the hills and coasts. They may have been part of the conquered people, but unlike the Heílôtes, they kept their freedom, and proved themselves often hardy light troops. Another interesting class are the Mothakes, or Mothones (singular, Mothax), who were deemed inferior (socially) to the Homoioi, but brought up by wealthier patrons. The great Spartan mercenary Captain-General whom many of you know of, Xanthippus, who wiped out the first Roman invasion army of Carthaginian Africa in 255 B.C., was probably a Mothax. Polybius states he 'had been brought up in the Spartan discipline, and had had a fair amount of military experience' (The Histories, Book 1.32.1), and Diodorus merely tells us he was a 'Spartan' (Bibliotheca Historica, Book 23.14.1). But they are not in accord as to Xanthippus' fate (compare Polybius, Book 1.36.2-4, in which he returned home, and Diodorus, Book 23.16, where we read of Xanthippus' betrayal by the Carthaginians in Lilybaeum (they gave him a leaky ship, hence he drowned at sea), followed a few years later by a grisly public murder of Marcus Atilius Regulus by the Carthaginians; Regulus was the able Roman consul who invaded Africa and met defeat at the hands of Xanthippis after a promising start (there are a few versions of Regulus' horrible torture in later annalists); Polybius does state that there was 'another account given of Xanthippus' departure', which he said he 'would endeavor to set forth on an occasion more suitable than the present', but we never read of it. Maybe he never got around to the 'more suitable occasion', or it's part of his lost works). Diodorus probably reported much Greek and Roman propaganda without really being aware of it, or simply not caring much about critical scrutiny, as the studious Polybius and Tacitus would have. But Diodorus was writing a universal history, and had to compress and epitomize as much as he could with deeply detailed works he drew from. Regardless, Xanthippus probably knew Hamilcar Barca and Sosylos, the 'Lacedaemonian' who tutored none other than Hannibal; Sosylos may have been one of the 'hundred or fifty soldiers' who came to Africa with Xanthippus to put the Carthaginian army on a better footing (this is lose conjecture, but Sosylos obviously wound up in the Carthaginian sphere of influence, and in a high position with the Barcids not unlike Polybius came to be, in his case being under the patronage of the Scipionic Circle). If so, it is significant that part of Sparta's military lore passed into the erudition of one of the greatest of battlefield commanders of all time (cf. John F. Lazenby, The Spartan Army, pg. 170). As with the likes of Pagondas and Timoleon, a seemingly great commander (Xanthippus) simply disappeared from the record.

Anyway, forgive the rambling :roll: The comments from Diodorus that the Skiritai had their 'own station with the king', and that they were an 'important factor in turning the scale in pitched battles, generally determining the victory' is almost certainly far too sweeping. Antony Andrewes (not a typo; that is how his last name is spelled), a terrific classical scholar mentioned by Howard, believed that Diodorus, as is common with his 'internal economy' (a description of some of Diodorus' summarized works by the late, great Nicholas G. Hammond), has telescoped Thucydides' reference to the Skiritai (History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.67.1) with one soon thereafter to the 300 'Knights' Hippeis (History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.72.4; cf. Andrewes, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides Vol. 4, pg. 104). Diodorus also seems to be making generalizations derived from Xenophon's description of an exploit during Agesilaus II's same campaign, near Tanagra (cf. John F. Lazenby, The Spartan Army, pg. 9):

Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 5.4.52-53,

"...it really seemed that Agesilaus' expedient proved a clever one, for though he led his army directly away from the enemy, he caused the latter to retire on the run, and while the enemy ran past, some of his polemarchs with their regiments nevertheless succeeded in charging upon them. The Thebans, however, hurled their spears from the hill-tops, so that Alypetus, one of the polemarchs, was struck and killed; but in spite of that the Thebans were put to flight from this hill also. Consequently the Sciritans and some of the horsemen climbed the hill and showered blows upon the hind-most of the Thebans as they rushed past them toward the city. As soon as they got near the wall, however, the Thebans turned about; and the Sciritans, upon seeing them, fell back at a faster pace than a walk. Now not one of them was killed; nevertheless, the Thebans set up a trophy, because after climbing the hill the Sciritans had retired..."

Thus, assuming Xenophon is more tenable, it's quite possible that, alternatively but with the same conclusion of emendation, Ephorus (uncritically followed by Diodorus) also wrote Skiritai, but meant the Hippeis - who would indeed be stationed with the king.

Quote:What is the evidence that the Spartan Hippeis functioned as a Royal Guard as opposed to an elite unit that often fought in the vicinity of the King along the battle line?...
Perhaps what Herodotus wrote regarding Themistocles' escort of 300 ?????? (The Histories, Book 8.124), but it's still moot. A passage from Thucydides is worthy to cite, but it is from Strabo (the Loeb Classical translation), citing Ephorus (who worked in the early-mid 4th century B.C.), from whom we may have the most direct mention, but not totally in answer to your query, Paul. But I basically agree with Howard that there was probably not a distinct function of an elite group who formed a Royal Guard which didn't primarily fight close to the king (again, there was perhaps a sub-group constituting the king's actual bodyguard per se).

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.72, at Mantinea, 418 B.C.,

"...the Mantinean right broke their Sciritae and Brasideans, and bursting in with their allies and the 1,000 picked Argives into the unclosed breach in their line cut up and surrounded the Lacedaemonians, and drove them in full rout to the wagons, slaying some of the older men on guard there. But the Lacedaemonians, worsted in this part of the field, with the rest of their army, and especially the center, where the 300 knights*, as they are called, fought round King Agis, fell on the older men of the Argives and the five companies so named, and on the Cleonaeans, the Orneans, and the Athenians next them, and instantly routed them..."

*The ancient Greek word for Thucydides' '300 Knights' reads ?????.

Thucydides wrote '300 knights'. However, he does state earlier that this raised force of cavalry, six years before the Battle of Mantinea, was unprecedented; there is never a mention of Spartan cavalry in the works of Tyrtaeus. However, he doesn't quite tally with Xenophon, and anything not directly related to the events of the Peloponnesian War, the greatest of ancient historians takes on a secondary role.

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 4.55, following the famous Spartan defeat at the hands of Demosthenes and Cleon on the island of Sphacteria in 425 B.C.,

"...The Lacedaemonians seeing the Athenians masters of Cythera, and expecting descents of the kind upon their coasts, nowhere opposed them in force, but sent garrisons here and there through the country, consisting of as many heavy infantry as the points menaced seemed to require, and generally stood very much upon the defensive. After the severe and unexpected blow that had befallen them in the island, the occupation of Pylos and Cythera, and the apparition on every side of a war whose rapidity defied precaution, they lived in constant fear of internal revolution, and now took the unusual step of raising 400 horse and a force of archers, and became more timid than ever in military matters, finding themselves involved in a maritime struggle, which their organization had never contemplated, and that against Athenians, with whom an enterprise unattempted was always looked upon as a success sacrificed. Besides this, their late numerous reverses of fortune, coming close one upon another without any reason, had thoroughly unnerved them, and they were always afraid of a second disaster like that on the island, and thus scarcely dared to take the field, but fancied that they could not stir without a blunder, for being new to the experience of adversity they had lost all confidence in themselves..."

Strabo, Geographica, Book 10.4.18,

"...Lycurgus the Spartan law-giver, Ephorus continues, was five generations later than the Althaemenes who conducted the colony to Crete; for historians say that Althaemenes was son of the Cissus who founded Argos about the same time when Procles was establishing Sparta as metropolis; and Lycurgus, as is agreed by all, was sixth in descent from Procles; and copies are not earlier than their models, nor more recent things earlier than older things; not only the dancing which is customary among the Lacedaemonians, but also the rhythms and paeans that are sung according to law, and many other Spartan institutions, are called 'Cretan' among the Lacedaemonians, as though they originated in Crete; and some of the public offices are not only administered in the same way as in Crete, but also have the same names, as, for instance, the office of the 'Gerontes', and that of the 'Hippeis' (except that the 'Hippeis' in Crete actually possessed horses, and from this fact it is inferred that the office of the 'Hippeis' in Crete is older, for they preserve the true meaning of the appellation, whereas the Lacedaemonian 'Hippeis' do not keep horses*); but though the Ephors have the same functions as the Cretan Cosmi, they have been named differently; and the public messes are, even today, still called 'Andreia' among the Cretans, but among the Spartans they ceased to be called by the same name as in earlier times..."

*Bingo! The Spartan Hippeis were not mounted, specified by Strabo (the English translation in Strabo for the "Hippeis" reads ??????); however, Ephorus via Strabo is referring here to body-politics: the Cosmi was the body of chief magistrates in Crete, and here his usage of 'Gerontes' (the highest Spartan senatores of the Gerousia, comprising 28 men over the age of sixty) is being gauged for the chief magistrates of Crete. At the Battle of Leuctra, the descriptions of Diodorus and Plutarch indicate that something beyond the potential maladroitness of phalanx battles took place, and the Spartan ranks fell into disorder even before Epaminondas' novel 50-shields battle line plowed into their right (the Theban left was anchored by none other than the 300 members of the Theban Sacred Band under Pelopidas). Anyway, the Royal Guard were certainly on foot here in 371 B.C., and a few sentences before I pick up with Xenophon's text (upcoming, Book 6.4.13-14) he writes, 'the cavalry of the Lacedaemonians was exceedingly poor at that time'.

The references are scarce from Xenophon: but inferences, depending on our vivid imaginations (:lolSmile, can come about. In Book 3.3.9 of the Hellenica, during the intense Conspiracy of Cinadon (c. 397 B.C.), and in Book 6.4.14, amid the action at Leuctra (the latter clash which has been referred to in this thread in connection with the Spartan Royal Guard); unfortunately, we do not get that valuable nomenclature. Within these frameworks it would be quite revealing:

Hellenica, Book 3.3.8-9,

"...the ephors came to the conclusion that he [the informer] was describing a well-considered plan, and were greatly alarmed; and without even convening the Little Assembly*, as it was called, but merely gathering about them - one ephor here and another there - some of the senators, they decided to send Cinadon to Aulon along with others of the younger men, and to order him to bring back with him certain of the Aulonians and Helots whose names were written in the official dispatch. And they ordered him to bring also the woman who was said to be the most beautiful woman in Aulon and was thought to be corrupting the Lacedaemonians who came there, older and younger alike. Now Cinadon had performed other services of a like sort for the ephors in the past; so this time they gave him the dispatch in which were written the names of those who were to be arrested. And when he asked which of the young men he should take with him, they said: 'Go and bid the eldest of the commanders of the guard** to send with you six or seven of those who may chance to be at hand.' In fact they had taken care that the commander should know whom he was to send, and that those who were sent should know that it was Cinadon whom they were to arrest. The ephors said this thing besides to Cinadon, that they would send three wagons, so that they would not have to bring back the prisoners on foot - trying to conceal, as far as they could, the fact that they were sending after one man - himself..."

Clever ruse, huh? *We know nothing of this 'Little Assembly'; was it a translator's term synonymous with the Apella? It clearly wasn't the Ephoroi; perhaps a branch of the Homoioi, Hyperitai or Phylae - all upper-class political branches? Judging by the context ('without even' consulting them), it could very well be the Gerousia, but wouldn't he have stated that? Mmmm. Whoops, there goes that nomenclature again!

**This is what Howard touched on - the 'choosers' of the Royal Guard were indeed known as hippagretai. This is where Xenophon can be tantalizing! Other than perhaps Book 6.4.14 in the Hellenica, he nowhere refers to the Hippeis by name. In his Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, however, he describes a system by which 300 young Spartans were selected on the basis of merit. The selection was made by three men called hippagretai, who themselves were appointed by the ephors. Each hippagretes selected 100 young men. The purpose of the institution was the encouragement of reaching the pinnacle of manly excellence, culminating with one's appointment to the Agathoergothoi (??????????; see below). It is not possible to be sure about Xenophon's meaning, but he alludes that the three hippagretai were over 30 years of age and the picked 300 themselves were men between around 20 to 30 years old. Xenophon does not state either here or in his Constitution of the Lacedaemonians (4.1-6 or 13. 6f.), or anywhere else (AFAIK) that these 300 acted as a royal bodyguard; nor does he refer to them as Hippeis; I hope that his usage of the term hippagretai ('those who enroll the Hippeis') - which the Loeb Classical Library's translation clearly reveals - implies a self-explanatory issue, and surely pertains to the Hippeis we are perusing to identify! Of course, philology takes on a whole new ball game, with so much 'static' in each era's translations, etc.

OK. Here's possibly the main passage from Xenophon which pertains to all this, Hellenica, Book 6.4.13-14,

"...Now 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..."

*Here at Leuctra, to reiterate, the Spartan cavalry had just been vanquished, thus the 'royal bodyguard' were clearly infantrymen, as told to us by Thucydides at Mantinea, and Ephorus (through Strabo), in a more general sense. The ancient Greek word for Xenophon's 'royal bodyguard' is ??????.

As for the institution of the 300 figure, we read in Xenophon's Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Book 4.3-6,

"...The Ephors, then, pick out three of the very best among them. These three are called Commanders of the Guard [hippagretai]. Each of them enrolls a hundred others, stating his reasons for preferring one and rejecting another. The result is that those who fail to win the honor are at war both with those who sent them away and with their successful rivals; and they are on the watch for any lapse from the code of honor.

Here then you find that kind of strife that is dearest to the gods, and in the highest sense political -- the strife that sets the standard of a brave man's conduct; and in which either party exerts itself to the end that it may never fall below its best, and that, when the time comes, every member of it may support the state with all his might. And they are bound, too, to keep themselves fit, for one effect of the strife is that they spar whenever they meet; but anyone present has a right to part the combatants. If anyone refuses to obey the mediator the Warden takes him to the Ephors; and they fine him heavily, in order to make him realize that he must never yield to a sudden impulse to disobey the laws..."


The ancient Greek word denoting Xenophon's 'Commanders of the Guard' is ?????????? - houtoi de hippagretai kalountai.

Herodotus wrote, The Histories, Book 1.67.5,

"...those Spartans who are called 'Well-doers*,' discovered it. Now the 'Well-doers' are of the citizens of the eldest who are passing from the ranks of the 'Horsemen,' in each year five; and these are bound during that year in which they pass out from the 'Horsemen,' to allow themselves to be sent without ceasing to various places by the Spartan State..."

*Agathoergothoi (??????????). Herodotus' 'Horseman' are probably the same as Thucydides' 'Knights'.

So, from Herodotus we get 'Horsemen' ('Knights' in Book 8.124), and the eldest five men of the Hippeis (assumption) become members of the Agathoergothoi, a body of retired members of the Royal Guard who now serve the State in a special function.

I also agree that the Hippeis were not Hippies; despite the similarity in lexemes, the s?mantikós behind our discourse here on an ancient Spartan army classification is pretty far removed from counter-cultural youth movements which originated in the San Francisco area in the late 1960s. The etymology is not even close; Hippies comes from Hip or Hipster, the latter being a term to identify the jazz ultra-enthusiasts of the 1940s. I'm not getting off topic am I? :lol:

OK. What did I accomplish? Probably more perturbation!

Food for thought.

Thanks, James K MacKinnon Smile
"A ship in harbor is safe - but that is not what ships are built for."

James K MacKinnon
Reply
#20
An excellent response James which has added much to this interesting debate Big Grin ) . There is much to consider in your comments to which I will return at some point. I should add that like you I managed to get a library copy of Lazenby's book many years ago and also photocopied it. The contents are totally absorbing of course, and his analysis pivotal to understanding the way the Spartan army changed, evolved, and crucially dealt with the manpower issues. His own views ultimately are at odds with some prevailing wisdoms regarding the actual numbers available to later Spartan armies. As I remember he is inclined to double the figures that many subscribe to. My only problem is that I can't find my own copy just at present - but I will ...

New York City BTW - is one of my favourite places. I was working there in the late 1990s by Madison Square Park, near where Broadway crosses 5th (in fact just a block or two down from the Flat Iron Building). I enjoyed my stint there, and previous and subsequent trips (the last time being 2005 when I came out to see the reunited Cream play at Madison Square Garden). So with Sparta and the Big Apple - we have two things in common ... 8)
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#21
Jim Carozza's depiction of the Sciriate is interesting as is the argument to support it. Part of the rationale is that the Sciritae always held the left of the phalanx line and therefore were likely "missile troops" so as not to rob the homoioi of their glory. This because they face the "unguarded" right of the opposing line. Yet it is at Maniniea in 418 where we first unequivocally have them denoted as such and they are routed by the "normal" (according to Thucydides) crabbing of the respective lines to their right and the gap opened by Agis' orders. If this was normal - as Thucydides and common modern acceptance suggests - the Sciritae were more often than not in no mean danger of envelopment and hardly had the leisure to outshine their betters.

There is no need to go over the detail of Thucydides' description of the line that has been well covered in another thread but, if Thucydides excludes the Sciritae then he also excludes the "Brasideans and Neodamodeis as units prior to addressing the "Lacedaemonians themselves" who are then drawn up as deep as their commanders feel necessary. Carozza suggests, by quoting Thucydides as writing "the Sciritae were not drawn up in the same depth as the rest", that the Sciritae were clearly light infantry, not to be included amongst the hoplite numbers. What Thucydides actually writes says nothing about the depth of the Sciritae:

Quote:5.68.3
The first rank of the Enomoty was composed of four soldiers: as to the depth, although they had not been all drawn up alike, but as each captain chose, they were generally ranged eight deep; the first rank along the whole line, exclusive of the Sciritae, consisted of four hundred and forty-eight men.


Carozza is right in that the Greek writers were only interested in hoplite numbers - the light armed mostly reduced to "dismissive" side notices - and thus the Sciritae, clearly named as forming the left of the Lacedaemonian phalanx line, are most likely hoplite armed here.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
#22
K.M.T. Chrimes (amongst others) suggests that 512 of the Skiritai had perhaps become fully hoplitised by the time of 1st Mantinea with the surplus from the nominal 600 perhaps operating as either part of scouting or krypteia type activities, or working alongside the cavalry hamippoi style. In any event, it might be that the bulk had become light hoplites retaining the animal skin as body protection whilst adopting the aspis/hoplon in more conventional manner as the need arose. The above illustration would therefore be more appropriate to the 88 or so Skiritai who served in the peltast/hamippoi type role. Assuming the more mobile hoplite operation affected all their apparel, one might suggest that their helmets remained as felt caps, rather than bronze. The Skiritai were obviously respected and trusted perioikoi due to their nominated roles as battlefield left wing flank unit; occasional advance scouts; and camp guards.








[size=50:ozayru7h]100[/size]
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#23
So unless I have missed something, the evidence is quite meager. We have a reference from Thucydides that they fought around the king at Mantinea.

Quote:Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.72, at Mantinea, 418 B.C.,

"..But the Lacedaemonians, worsted in this part of the field, with the rest of their army, and especially the center, where the 300 knights*, as they are called, fought round King Agis, fell on the older men of the Argives ..."

We have their presence near the king at Leuktra:

Quote:14] But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus,1 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,

14] ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ? ?????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ????????? ? ???? ?????, ??? ?? †??? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ?????????

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:

Quote: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.

The king and these important men are wounded or die first, then in a second phrase the Hippeis and whatever the Polemarch's own are are pushed back by the Theban crowd. There are many around the King. Where were the first men listed standing? There is no indication that they were part of the Hippeis any more than part of the polemarch's own or the "others" as the english translation would make it seem. If anything you could make a case that his tent companions (and their children!) fought around him.

Quote: But I basically agree with Howard that there was probably not a distinct function of an elite group who formed a Royal Guard which didn't primarily fight close to the king (again, there was perhaps a sub-group constituting the king's actual bodyguard per se).

Of course there was. The 300 of the Sacred band had a function that had nothing to do with a king, as did the 1,000 picked men of the Argives. The Sacred Band or the Argive chosen could easily have been an honor guard as the Hippeis were for Themistocles, without pretensions to giving him a royal guard.

Quote: The ancient Greek word for Xenophon's 'royal bodyguard' is ??????.


This is the problem. That assumption, based on next to nothing has then biased all translations having to do with the elite unit. For example it clouds the translation of Hippagretai:

Quote:Xenophon's Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Book 4.3-6,

"...The Ephors, then, pick out three of the very best among them. These three are called Commanders of the Guard [hippagretai]."

Thus the Hippeis could simply be what the picked men of other poleis were: an elite unit. The best men they had, and in the Spartan context they would have had the added bonus of being an all spartiate unit, unmixed with perioic or hypomeionic elements. They might be expected to fight where the need for men the best men was percieved to be and often the king might fight there as well since it was a place of honor.


Quote:The great Spartan mercenary Captain-General whom many of you know of, Xanthippus, who wiped out the first Roman invasion army of Carthaginian Africa in 255 B.C., was probably a Mothax. Polybius states he 'had been brought up in the Spartan discipline, and had had a fair amount of military experience' (The Histories, Book 1.32.1), and Diodorus merely tells us he was a 'Spartan' (Bibliotheca Historica, Book 23.14.1).

As far as I know the suggestion that Xanthippos was a Mothax was Lazenby's alone. I don't find it convincing beyond any of the other options. The phrase could work equally as well for a Hypomeiones, but I think it was merely to provide bona fides when writing at a time when no one was brought up "in the Spartan discipline" of a century past. A variety of other authors have him a full Spartiate and even officially sent by the Spartans to the Carthaginians- which is unlikely. I think Diodorus calls him a Lakedaimonian, leading some to think him Perioic. I have spent some time studying Xanthippos, send me an email and I'll send you some interesting information that I have dug up.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#24
Well said, Mr Bardunias !....thoughts which rely on the evidence such as it is. Much better than the speculation/fantasies about the 'sciritae', based on no evidence at all as far as I am aware! If we stick to what little evidence there is, largely Thucydides, the 'Sciritae' are simply a lochos of allied Hoplites who have the priviledge of holding the left flank of the line and leading the column of march ( the two are synonymous, of course, because a simple 'right turn!' transforms the column, of which the 'Sciritae' are the lead unit, into a line, of which the 'Sciritae' become the left-most unit :wink: ). The corollary of this priveledge is that they work harder, providing sentinels etc....Diodorus' references to 'elite' Sciritae[see ante previous posts] have been shown to be a conflation of Sciritae and Hippeis, probably derived and compressed from Thucydides comments on Mantinea.

Returning to the 'Hippeis', it is, in my view, significant that the Hippeis are NEVER referred to in the sources as a Royal bodyguard, they simply fight, as one might expect 'about the King' or 'near the King' which is where one would expect an elite unit to be. Instead, at the beginning of the Classical era we hear of a different unit of guards, 100 strong - "The prerogatives of the Spartan Kings are these.......On service, the Kings go first and return last; they have a bodyguard of a hundred picked men..." and they evidently exist toward the end of the era as well, for Xenophon refers to Agesilaus' "doryphoroi", lit : 'spearmen', used to refer traditionally to a bodyguard ( Xen. Hell. IV.5.8) . What is more, whenever a Spartan King goes abroad, we never hear of him being accompanied by the Hippeis - Leonidas' 300 are clearly not intended to be 'Hippeis' ( who seem to have been picked from the 'hebontes' - young men under 30), since they are picked from men with sons, and even if one has doubts about this story that Leonidas knew he was going to his doom as part of the subsequent legend, the fact that they were selected/picked tells us they weren't the regular 'Hippeis' - nowhere does Herodotus refer to 'the three hundred' as the 'Hippeis', who he knew of , mentioning Themistocles Honour Guard ( see earlier posts - digression, as unique to Themistocles, since Cimon died before Herodotus wrote, he cannot have received this honour). Later, Agesilaus abroad is accompanied by a staff of thirty Spartiates, and on occasion 'doryphoroi'/Royal Guard - but no 'Hippeis'. They accompany the Spartan Army, not the King, again as you would expect of an elite unit that was NOT a 'Bodyguard'. Thucydides too, like Herodotus and Xenophon, never describes them as a 'Royal Bodyguard', so all our main authorities are in accord.

Thomas Figueira postulated that the three Hippagretae( Xen Constit'n IV.3) who each chose 100 Hippeis ( or more probably the replacements for those graduating as 'good men') each chose for the three Doric Phyles/tribes of Hylleis, Dimnanes and Pamphylioi, and that since the Kings were 'Hylleis', this 100 within the 'Hippeis' provided the King's bodyguard, which seems an attractive idea until we recall that 'Hippeis' and 'Guard' never overlap in our sources, but references ( albeit very few) refer to one or the other ( i.e. no references to "..the Hylleis of the Hippeis.." or "..the Guard from the Hippeis..." )

Because the Hippeis never go abroad with the King, but only form part of the Army, going only where the Army goes and because all our sources treat "Royal Guard' and 'Hippeis' as quite separate entities, I think we may safely say they were NOT a 'Royal Bodyguard'.

P.S. The title of this thread refers to what Google asks you if try to google 'Hippeis' Smile D lol: :lol:
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#25
Quote:So unless I have missed something, the evidence is quite meager. We have a reference from Thucydides that they fought around the king at Mantinea ... Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.72, at Mantinea, 418 B.C., ... We have their presence near the king at Leuktra: ... the Hippeis could simply be what the picked men of other poleis were: an elite unit. The best men they had, and in the Spartan context they would have had the added bonus of being an all spartiate unit, unmixed with perioic or hypomeionic elements. They might be expected to fight where the need for men the best men was percieved to be and often the king might fight there as well since it was a place of honor ...

The reality is that we arrive back where we started with this thread Paul because you are quite right - the evidence is thin, occasionally contradictory, and always second hand. However, the fun of these things is we can fall back on deductive reasoning as James suggested. I stand by all my comments which are based upon deduction and I hope educated speculation. As I say the de facto term is appropriate. For all the reasons I have given about the importance of the king as military, political, religious and ceremonial leader - plus his tendency to lead from the most dangerous position imaginable - it is not unreasonable, nor improbable, to deduce he was surrounded by a body guard - and that the Hippeis served that purpose. Sparta's peculiar constitution, plus her lack of written records, plus her natural secrecy about such things all tends to obfuscate matters as we know only too well. 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?

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).

Quote:... Thomas Figueira postulated that the three Hippagretae( Xen Constit'n IV.3) who each chose 100 Hippeis (or more probably the replacements for those graduating as 'good men') each chose for the three Doric Phyles/tribes of Hylleis, Dimnanes and Pamphylioi, and that since the Kings were 'Hylleis', this 100 within the 'Hippeis' provided the King's bodyguard, which seems an attractive idea until we recall that 'Hippeis' and 'Guard' never overlap in our sources, but references (albeit very few) refer to one or the other (i.e. no references to "..the Hylleis of the Hippeis.." or "..the Guard from the Hippeis...") ...

Which (other) Paul is what I had been suggesting. This 100 unit may well have been an alternating body of each Dorian subtribe. 100 Hylleis - 100 Dymanes - 100 Pamphyloi - in succession/rotation - coming together as the full unit when required. As I never tire of stating - the tripartite multiples of 3 are prevalent in Dorian and particularly Spartan thinking. I sometimes wonder why they never had three kings!

The fact that the 300 never went abroad (by that I take it you mean outside of mainland Hellas) is hardly surprising since the regular Spartan army hardly ever did either. The core principle of the army was to protect and preserve the Spartan way of life and as such was preferred to remain in Lakedaimon. The Spartans were notoriously loathe to send its troops abroad and when it did more often than not it amounted to a general, king, regent with a handful of staff supported by mercenaries, perioikoi, neodamodeis etc. Whether in Krete, Asia Minor, Italy, Sicily or wherever - this principle usually held. Trying to get them north of the Isthmus of Korinth was difficult enough!!! Later this principle was extended to the condotteries which included Agesilaos II (A2) and of course Xanthippos (and yes I would be interested in your latest info on such PMB and will PM you - cheers Big Grin ). I recognise and accept the possible incongruity of sending a king abroad without his 'bodyguard' (i.e A2), however, I would postulate that once Sparta (unwisely) embarked upon empire-building-running on a larger stage - all previous bets were off.

Although well off the subject, I agree with PMB's points about Xanthippos. Even if he had been a Mothax it would hardly have mattered. It didn't stop Lysander's steady rise to prominence who was alledgedly of mixed background. Finally, we can agree to disagree about whether the Hippeis were a Royal Guard or not. We can rely entirely upon the ancient sources' limited references or apply some further analysis. However, I would ask what the Hippeis were for specifically - in a citizen army that (at its peak) was largely populated by elite troops anyway? Until the time of Pelopidas and the Theban Sacred band, there was probably no organised unit that could take on a regular Spartan one (fighting in similar manner as opposed to freak events like Sphakteria or Lekhaion). 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. Interestingly, and as a sideline, the news of approaching battle between the Spartan led army of Agis II and the Argive/Athenian force led to the other king, Pleistoanax embarking from Sparta with a reinforcing army. Although he turned back at Tegea - it is interesting to wonder what would have happened had be arrived at Mantinea in time to join Agis. Presumably the former would have handed over comand to the latter? Or perhaps given Agis' record the opposite? In any event they would have wanted to avoid a repetition of Kleomenes I and Damaratos - so presumably the Ephoral presence would have made itself known.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#26
Quote: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.



Quote: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 :wink:

Quote: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.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#27
Quote:
Quote: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).

Quote:
Quote: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 Sad . 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 ?

Quote:
Quote: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.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#28
Quote: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).

I see no reason to make the origin of the Hippeis any more or less an aristocratic element than the Athenian Hippeis, the Roman Equites, or the Mediaval knight, as is made clear in the French/Spanish/Italian terms for them Chevalier/Caballaero/Cavalieri. All of there draw their name from the fact that they represent a group that at some time in the past or present could afford to own and train horses. There is no need to make them especially tied to the King.

Quote: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: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=27368 ?

I did not write of this because there is not much to write. The Krypteia were a small subset of those young men who were exiting the Agoge. They would not have been blooded yet and this rite is probably the same as the "blooding" writes of passage common to many cultures. That you would use such boys as anything approaching a special forces unit I find impossible. You would not use men who had never killed or even been in battle for this role.

Quote: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.

There's no need to resort to Pan-dorianism. Xenophon tells us that Agiselaos should have done at Coronea exatly what was done to the Argives- let them pass and attack them to keep them moving.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#29
Ghostmojo/Howard wrote:
Quote:the evidence is thin, occasionally contradictory, and always second hand.

…the evidence may be thin, as with all ancient subjects drawing on a handful of sources, and second hand ( no works by Spartan historians exist) but it is certainly not contradictory, or even occasionally so. From Herodotus to Xenophon, the picture is consistent. The ‘Royal Bodyguard’ and the Hippeis are two different entities, the latter selected by ‘Hippagretae’ as the best of Sparta’s young men, 300 strong; and the former, selected by the King to be his companions/bodyguard, 100 strong. The Hippeis belong to, and are always part of, Sparta’s main Army, and are never spoken of as accompanying the King; the ‘Doryphoroi’ are with the King whether the main Army is present or not. The 'doryphoroi'/bodyguard are never called Hippeis and the Hippeis are never called 'Bodyguard'.

Quote:it is not unreasonable, nor improbable, to deduce he was surrounded by a body guard - and that the Hippeis served that purpose.

….What need for ‘deduction’ when our sources tell us the King had a bodyguard ? Herodotus couldn’t be more specific! ( see earlier post), and neither could Xenophon when speaking of the King’s “Doryphoroi’/Bodyguard – and both these authors also speak of the Hippeis, but NOT as Guards.

Quote: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?

The idea that Leonidas knew he was going on a suicide mission likely belongs to Legend, not history, as does the ‘only fathers’ idea. If it were true, then by definition none of the Hippeis went – because they were all under 30, and Spartans could apparently only marry and have legitimate children after 30.What is more, Leonidas does not take a particular unit, but the 300 are “chosen by himself” apparently individually. ( Her VII.205.2) – rather like an enlarged ‘Bodyguard’.
Significantly too, Herodotus never calls the 300 'Hippeis', though he speaks of them elsewhere. It is inconceivable that if Sparta's 'Best of the Best' were present, Herodotus would not have mentioned the fact
As to the number 300, which frequently crops up in connection with Spartan forces and dangerous missions, it may have had some connection to the ‘three phyles’ at some point in the distant past, but it also happens that if you take the age groups 30-55, and pick by lot or otherwise one ‘enomotia’/file/platoon from each of the Lochoi (six Morai/Twelve Lochoi), you get 300 ( 12 x 25), as Lazenby has pointed out – which suggests the Spartan Army had always been organised into six Morai of two Lochoi each all the way back to the mid sixth century and the ‘Battle of the Champions’, which is also consistent with Demaratus’ 8,000 total for the Army ( Her VII.234.2).


Quote:The fact that the 300 never went abroad (by that I take it you mean outside of mainland Hellas) is hardly surprising since the regular Spartan army hardly ever did either.

…exactly the point! The Hippeis are part of the Army, and only appear when the Army is present. The King on the other hand frequently went off on various expeditions, accompanied by his bodyguards, advisors and even ‘Gentlemen volunteers’ from the Perioicoi, but NOT the Hippeis. It would be a strange ‘bodyguard’ that never accompanied the ‘body’ they were supposed to be ‘guarding’!

You acknowledge this point……..
Quote:I recognise and accept the possible incongruity of sending a king abroad without his 'bodyguard' (i.e A2), however, I would postulate that once Sparta (unwisely) embarked upon empire-building-running on a larger stage - all previous bets were off.
…and then totally dismiss it for no apparent reason. What does “all bets were off” mean ? The Hippeis are no longer ‘Guards’ ? Where is there any hint of evidence? The evidence, from Herodotus to Xenophon, never says, suggests ,or hints that they were the King’s bodyguard in the first place !


Quote:Although I remember distinctly reading somewhere (just can't remember where) 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………..In any event they would have formed part of a continuous line when required so their smaller size might not have mattered much.

Several scholars have tried to equate mention of the ‘Agema’/leading unit of the first Mora with the Hippeis, based on the fact that the later Macedonians had a Guards unit called the ‘Agema’, but this is spurious. Xenophon is describing a manoeuvre and ‘Agema’ simply has its natural meaning of leading unit. As you rightly point out, you can’t fit 300 into the Mora/Lochoi structure without ‘fudging’ numbers in some way. As you also rightly point out, since they all fitted into a single Phalanx anyway it didn’t matter - no one unit faced any other unit.

There is simply no escaping the fact that our sources:
1. Never describe the 300 Hippeis as in any way being a 'Royal Bodyguard', or accompanying the King.
2. Do describe a separate unit of 'Bodyguards', 100 strong who do accompany the King, who are never called 'Hippeis'/ knights but are called 'Doryphoroi'/Bodyguards
3. Our sources, thin as they are, are consistent with this throughout. ( and as has been remarked frequently elsewhere, if you reject the sources you are left with nothing - unless they are demonstrably wrong.)
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#30
I don't reject the sources Paul - merely postulate that since we are having a discussion based upon Paul B's original thesis - it is not unreasonable to develop and explore the gaps in our knowledge, and also not untoward to postulate hypotheses which might bridge these gaps. The likes of Cartledge, Hodkinson and Powell have developed careers doing this. Also the ancient sources are not completely unambiguous as the interpretation by various scholars over the centuries has shown. Herodotos, Thoukydides and Xenophon were all known to make omissions (often picked up upon by later commentators). Paul Cartledge - not unfamiliar with the ancient sources himself, and considered by many to be one of the leading (if not [size=85:1ncoh5wb]THE[/size] leading) authorities on Sparta refers to Lysander's election to the elite Royal Bodyguard of the 300 Hippeis (Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta [size=85:1ncoh5wb](Duckworth 1987)[/size] p29), and also to the primary function of the Hippeis being "to serve as the king's bodyguard in battle, somewhat in the manner of Alexander's Makedonian Hypaspists" (ibid p205). A. Andrewes also refers to them as the King's Guard, as does S. Hodkinson, A.H.M. Jones, H.W. Singor and K.M.T. Chrimes. I suppose I'm in reasonable company in that respect?!!!

Herodotos' comments "the three hundred men whom he brought on this occasion to Thermopylai were chosen by himself ([size=85:1ncoh5wb]LEONIDAS[/size]), all fathers of living sons" does not in itself preclude the possibility that these were a reconfigured Hippeis unit just because it is not expressed that way. H also goes on to say that "Leonidas and his three hundred were sent by Sparta in advance of the main army" indicating that even if L1 had selected the men - it was the city that sent them. Where are this other king's bodyguard of 100? Are they a part of this 300 figure? Perhaps. The 100 figure in itself does not accord very well with the tripartite system. Where were they when Xenophon discusses Agesilaos II in Asia Minor (with his 30 Spartans of the officer class and 50 volunteers)? Thoukydides, although never naming names, is clearly distrustful of Herodotos (for reasons I suspect of omission and confusion rather than specific misrepresentation) and mentions that at 1st Mantinea "King Agis was himself with the 300 troops called the knights". I agree this does not specifically state the Hippeis were the king's bodyguard but it is a leading reference which again is reflected by the repeated situation nearly 50 years later at Leuktra with Kleombrotos I.

So the ancient sources do mention the Hippeis accompanying (in as much as fighting with) the king (at least at 1st Mantinea and Leuktra). Sadly, as I recall there is no mention of either a 300 or 100 or Hippeis at Plataia. The interchanging of names the three hundred, the knights and the hippeis is common (e.g. Plutarch) and possibly the fact that the men at Thermopylai had become so famous - their number became preeminent over their origins. Ephoros refers to the Hippeis as a social class of the higher order to which privileged families belonged. The references made to knights merely reinforce this classification. However, that might have been an earlier situation which changed as time went on. I can readily accept that. The Hippagretai selected the Hippeis not only as an elite body - but also to continue and reinforce the internal competitiveness amongst those selected, and those not, from the hebontes. To add more interest to the discussion, the title - Hippeis - also clearly has slightly different meanings at different periods above and beyond the nomenclature of cavalry or ex-cavalry troops. In earlier times they were clearly a feudal social class of the highest order. This situation seems to have returned somewhat according to Polybios during the period of Kleomenes II.

BTW - by all previous bets were off I was refering to the fact that the Spartan state had embarked upon unexplored territory by sending A2 to Asia Minor with his largely non-Spartiate amalgam - so the usual protocols may well have been dispensed with too. So where does that leave us? I don't know for certain the exact nature of the Hippeis at any given point. It may have been different in say 622 [size=85:1ncoh5wb]BC[/size] to in 422 [size=85:1ncoh5wb]BC[/size] or to 222 [size=85:1ncoh5wb]BC[/size]. But I am not sure that your prescriptive certainty over the exclusivity of Hippeis from bodyguard is necessarily correct. Nor can it be absolutely certain the 100 were not merely a part of the 300 (I see merit in the Figueira position) - IMHO.

However, please do not take my responses for mere argumentativeness. I am fascinated by all contributions to this thread (from Paul MB/Paul McD/Stefanos/Ariobarzanes[size=85:1ncoh5wb](sorry don't know your real name)[/size]/Michael P/James MacK), and value all comments even when they/we are clearly at odds with each other.

Regards

Howard J (Ghostmojo)
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply


Forum Jump: