Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hippeis, not Hippies
#31
Quote:Paul Cartledge - not unfamiliar with the ancient sources himself, and considered by many to be one of the leading (if not THE leading) authorities on Sparta refers to Lysander's election to the elite Royal Bodyguard of the 300 Hippeis (Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (Duckworth 1987) 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).

This I think is the heart of the problem, and one that is pervasive in the study of Greek warfare. Were there no hypaspists we might be less quick to label the Hippeis a bodyguard. In my opinion many elements of hoplite warfare have been misinterpreted in the past because of the reliance on Hellenistic and later Roman sources. Cartledge in the above is merely propagating the error by presenting them a a guard in a way that suggests that this is in any way clear and settled.
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
#32
Quote:
Quote:Paul Cartledge - not unfamiliar with the ancient sources himself, and considered by many to be one of the leading (if not THE leading) authorities on Sparta refers to Lysander's election to the elite Royal Bodyguard of the 300 Hippeis (Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (Duckworth 1987) 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).

This I think is the heart of the problem, and one that is pervasive in the study of Greek warfare. Were there no hypaspists we might be less quick to label the Hippeis a bodyguard. In my opinion many elements of hoplite warfare have been misinterpreted in the past because of the reliance on Hellenistic and later Roman sources. Cartledge in the above is merely propagating the error by presenting them a a guard in a way that suggests that this is in any way clear and settled.

Well maybe Paul - but Cartledge is in very good company. He and the other modern scholars I mentioned all cite Herodotos, Thoukydides and Xenophon in their own reference sources (along with Polybios, Strabo, Diodoros Siculus etc.). I'm also sure he would be aware of all of these controversial issues, apparent contradictions and vagueries. I do agree it is far from clear and settled though.

I'm coming to the conclusion (belief) that the king's bodyguard on the battlefield may well have been the Hippeis+. This would include Paul McD's Doryphoroi (100) x 3, plus the Hippagretai themselves, plus the Olympic victors, plus any Polemarchs serving as the king's battlefield messmates. This figure could equate to 320 or so - roughly translated/rounded down as the three hundred. Perhaps as I mentioned earlier the same was true of the Skiritai. Their number might have been rounded up or down to 600.

Perhaps I could turn this on its head and ask why wouldn't a Spartan king be granted the Hippeis as his bodyguard on campaign (even if occasionally as opposed to regularly) - given their honorific and other specialised roles? Perhaps their presence in the vicinity of the king at 1st Mantinea and again at Leuktra is evidential of this?

BTW - I emailed you about the Xanthippos subject matter 8) . I'm just never sure if they get through when they go direct via these forum page links.

Cheers

H Big Grin
[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
#33
Quote:Well maybe Paul - but Cartledge is in very good company. He and the other modern scholars I mentioned all cite Herodotos, Thoukydides and Xenophon in their own reference sources (along with Polybios, Strabo, Diodoros Siculus etc.). I'm also sure he would be aware of all of these controversial issues, apparent contradictions and vagueries. I do agree it is far from clear and settled though.

We have just examined all of these "sources" and most of them have nothing whatsoever to say in connection with the hippeis being a guard unit for the king. This has not stopped the translators from labelling them such and then labeling those that pick them as the choosers of the Kings Guard!


Quote:Perhaps I could turn this on its head and ask why wouldn't a Spartan king be granted the Hippeis as his bodyguard on campaign (even if occasionally as opposed to regularly) - given their honorific and other specialised roles? Perhaps their presence in the vicinity of the king at 1st Mantinea and again at Leuktra is evidential of this?

Ah, here we are, the heart of the matter. When I asked this question it was to probe opinion on whether the King had any special hold over the Hippeis. It is fairly well ingrained in the popular opinion, i.e. the opinion of the populus, non-specialists, that Leonidas for example was denied troops to go to Thermopylae so he took his bodyguard. Because they were HIS guard, He could take them as he wished. Again, the fundamental question is whether the Hippeis formed on the battlefield next to the King, or if the King formed on the battlefield next to the Hippeis. These are not the same thing. Granting customary honors for the king to stand beside an elite unit, even forcing him to for his safety, or honoring an elite unit to stand beside the King, is not the same thing as a royal guard.
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
#34
You'd better get onto Wikipedia then PMB!!! There's some serious editing/explaining/revising needed there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Ar ... he_hippeis

Smile D lol: :wink:

As well as here:

http://www.ancientlibrary.com/seyffert/0299.html

http://www.spartanwarband.com/glossary.php

Whereas here is something that discusses the confusion you refer to:

http://books.google.com/books?id=j-9iYS ... q=&f=false
[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
#35
http://www.ancientlibrary.com/seyffert/0299.html

I can be forgiving on 19th century gentlemen...

but not here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Ar ... he_hippeis :evil: :evil:

Kind regards
Reply
#36
Great stuff. Kudos to Paul Bardunias for thinking up a specific topic which stimulates a terrific discussion from people who have scholarly viewpoints to offer. From my view, any solid conclusion should not be paramount (not to mention impossible), but the discussions which we exchange amid our varying opinions certainly sharpen our insights into all this. Studying the accounts deeply is a requisite (ancient and modern), but from discourses such as these we can broaden our views. However, I disagree with just about everything. But it's all moot.

I feel Hippeis should be capitalized, and hippeis, with regards to a horsemen in a generic sense (in the ancient Greek world), should not. But that's based from an English language perspective. Every similar pattern cannot be the same: describing an ancient Greek as Laconic surely differentiates than calling him/her 'laconic'. Because a/the Spartan royal guard (purposely not capitalized for now, the martial unit of this thread topic) were presumably at first mounted (and/or on chariots, perhaps) then on foot as they expanded (presumably), the term hippeis can potentially be inter-changeable, just as the larger 'problem' with an often equivocal use of 'Sparta' (??????) and 'Lacedaemon' (??????????) (Lacedaemonians could be classified as Spartans, but Spartans not as Lacedaemonians). Simply put, as best I can and as to how I opine it, the Hippeis of Sparta was indeed the name of the 'Horsemen' who constituted the picked 300 of the elite royal-bodyguard; the name stood despite the fact they began to operate on foot by the Classical Age. These indeed were the 'Horsemen' mentioned by Herodotus (The Histories, Book 1.67), and that they could perform other tasks other than always being at one of the king's side is not proof that other specialized units existed which were divorced from their institution.

One can accuse me pedantic rationalizing, but, in basically defining an army's Royal Guard, I sustain Wikipedia's description, before they start discussing details and the Royal Guards of various states and eras:

"A Royal Guard describes any group of military bodyguard, soldiers or retainers responsible for the protection of a royal person, such as a King or Queen. They are often an elite unit of the regular armed forces and may maintain special rights or privileges."

Quote:An excellent response James which has added much to this interesting debate Big Grin . Thanks also for your kind remarks...

Thanks Howard, and it's my pleasure. We actually have more in common than Sparta and NYC - I was born Jamey Johnston :o

Wirral is near Liverpool, no? I don't want to look up stuff right now (actually, I probably will by opening multiple tabs any minute). Yes, the Battle of Brunanburh - Athelstan the Glorious. As you see by current surname, my mother married a Scotsman. Tom, my step-dad, often spoke of the Kingdom of Alba with pride! We won't rub it in, eh?

I don't have a rigid problem with the challenging of academics, but I don't feel it should be done for the intrinsic 'challenge' of it (no accusation here from me, just sharing my beliefs on the issue), and I feel we should be a little extra sure we understand fully what they're stating, and check for a larger context. For example, Involving Xenophon's pivotal but brief phraseology in Book 6.4.14 on the Hippeis, one historian emphasized that Xenophon doesn't mention the Hippeis as being 'part of the army which was around the king' (peri ton basilea; he/she provided these modern Greek translations) and neither among 'those who were fighting in front of him' (peri ton Kleombroton to prôton ekratoun têi machêi), both terms used in Book 6.4.12-13. I apologize, as it's good trivia for our topic here, but I don't remember the author or title (I can dig it out); his/her angle was dealing with some aspects of Greek warfare, and in the writer's chapter dealing with the Spartans at Mantinea (using Thucydides' account of that battle as a gauge for Spartan military units, which is the part from the great ancient historian which we can indeed form a good gauge on much of the Spartan army). But the writer didn't bother mentioning that the very next section (14 of Book 6.4) reads 'then the royal bodyguard' (kai hoi men hippoi) as among those who were stymied by the Theban forward surge after or around the same time some noted figures he mentioned fell; even if he/she doesn't agree with the translations and emendation concerning the term hippeis for the royal bodyguard, why not even mention it amid the argument? I would argue that in three juxtaposing and brief references to 'men around the king', it shouldn't be identified who exactly they were in all three phrases. A major battle is being described, and it is irrefutable that the Spartan royal bodyguard (whoever they truly were and what they were specifically assigned) were among those who fell back under the famous Theban push under Epaminondas' tactical designs.

Quote:...Xenophon refers to Agesilaus' "doryphoroi", lit : 'spearmen', used to refer traditionally to a bodyguard ( Xen. Hell. IV.5.8) ...

Well, this is what the Loeb Classical Library (Xenophon, Hellenica, Vol. I, Books 1-4, translated by Carleton L. Brownson) reads verbatim, Book 4.5.8,

"...When they came running together, he [Agesilaus] told the rest of them to follow along as quickly as possible after swallowing what they could - for they had not yet breakfasted - while he himself with his tent companions went on ahead breakfastless. And the spearmen of his body-guard, fully armed, accompanied him with all speed, he leading the way and his tent companions following after him. But when he had already passed the hot springs and come to the plain of Lechaeum, three horsemen rode up and reported that the bodies of the dead had been recovered. When he heard this, he gave the order to ground arms, and after resting the army for a short time, led it back again to the Heraeum; and on the following day he exposed the prisoners and captured property for sale..."

The original Greek text, to reiterate from my first post, clearly reads ????????? (doruphoroi in the modern Greek, from Perseus.tufts) for the spearmen of his body-guard. Forgive my nitpicking, but the wording is 'spearmen of his body-guard', thus a part of it which, quite possibly, Agesilaus allocated to accompany him with 'all speed'. Of course, I need to be wary with such an assessment for an army which was not one of intricate combined arms. Wouldn't all the body-guard be spearmen, in an army of hoplites? Clealry, these spearmen denote those wielding a dory. As for the contingent of hundred in Herodotus (The Histories, Book 6.56), that could merely be the contingent of one of the three Dorian tribes, and not necessarily a different 'entity' from the Hippeis, if you will.

Basically, I feel an overlooked and specific issue which should be added on to the acknowledged overall problem of the nebulousness of perusing ancient historiography, is that, in the case of Sparta, one affecting factor as to why we haven't been availed any deep information about the infrastructure of the Spartan army is for a basic reason which can be identified. The practiced skill and experience of the Spartan soldier was well known to other Greeks, who bore witness to the Spartan army. But unlike with the reign of Philip II of Macedon, in which the contemporary and voluminous accounts of Ephorus, Theopompus, Marsyas of Pella, and Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus did not survive for us (the titled and fragmentary nature of their works reveals their works would without any doubt shed enormous light on the paucity of material we have to study the great Macedonian), the accounts of Thucydides (particularly his remarks on Spartan army composition at Sphacteria and Mantinea) and Xenophon, of which both we have in full, still leaves uncertainties, especially when a debate is triggered on a thematic basis which is centered around entailed detail to get a good picture. Ancient writers, even the likes of Hieronymus of Cardia and Polybius, were not equipped to write military history as a modern war correspondent could; when one Willem vanden Velde (the Elder) waded out in a boat and sketched his observations of the naval clash between England and the United Provinces (1653) off the island of Texel, and subsequently reported his inspectionss to the Staten-Generaal, perhaps the first 'war correspondent' in a modern sense was born (at the time he was simply the official artist of the Dutch fleet). Most ancient writers didn't pay as much attention to military details (as with economics, etc.) as we may wish, but in the case of Sparta, it was a closed society; Thucydides tells us in his opening account of Mantinea (418 B.C.):

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5.68,2,

"...the order and composition of the two armies: that of the Lacedaemonians appeared to be the larger, but what the number was, either of the several contingents, or of the total on either side, I cannot pretend exactly to say, for the secrecy of the government did not allow the strength of the Lacedaemonian army to be known, and the numbers on the other side were thought to be exaggerated by the vanity natural to men when speaking of their own forces. However, the following calculation may give some idea of the Lacedaemonian numbers..."

Thucydides also mentions the secrecy of Spartan society in Book 2.39.1 (xenelasia, described below as 'alien acts', denotes a policy of keeping out foreigners), attributing words to a rousing speech by Pericles:

History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 2.39.1-2,

"...'if we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. In proof of this it may be noticed that the Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone, but bring with them all their confederates; while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory of a neighbor, and fighting upon a foreign soil usually vanquish with ease men who are defending their homes..."

I totally agree with your line of thinking Howard: many reputable historians have differed on sub-topics etc, and some have been more heavily accepted than others. No person is infallible in any field with his/her supreme endeavor. But I am certain that, though I cannot prove it with indubitability, people like Paul Cartledge and John F. Lazenby (John K. Anderson merits attention) are cognizant of all the obscurities and indefinite issues when attempting to figure things out through a perusal of the ancient texts as any of the aficionados out there who seem to display a more rigid attitude about what the truth is. But that hardly means we need to watch our 'ps and qs' if we questions their assessments. Forgive my sensitivity (and superfluousness), but I just begin to worry when a discussion takes on an atmosphere of what exactly ancient etymological declensions may or may not mean. I am totally behind the issue of evidence when it is clearly an entailment to conclude something proof-positive: look at the debates we often read concerning the stirrup in Europe. With all the in-depth hypotheses about what horsemen amid melees can or cannot do, a belief that a European stirrup in common use before, say, the 7th and 8th centuries A.D., could have been a perishable item before the iron rings appeared (thus rationalizing away that there is not even an iota of physical evidence, stirrups still existed at an earlier time), and that the Huns must have had them to achieve what they did on horses. They had rigid tree-saddles (frames of wood) and smaller mounts, which was better for horse-archery and the execution of more force in weapons thrusting than the , the bottom line should be that, without one shred of physical or literary evidence coupled with the Romans' forte for applied science, the stirrup could not have existed on the Danube (and soon further west) before the Avars (traditional) arrived with them in the later half 6th century A.D (the stirrup in western Europe first appear on record with Saint Beatus' original Commentaria In Apocalypsin, c. 776 A.D.). Ancient horsemen could not effectuate what Medieval Knights could with a charge, let alone what the Polish-Lithuanian husaria could achieve in the 1600s, by which time the pear-shaped stirrups and prick spurs where in use. But adept horsemen, those growing up fighting in an equestrian society, could fight and maneuver on horseback without stirrups better than many seem to suggest they could. Actually, Tacitus seemingly reveals that Sarmatians, wielding their vaunted kontoi (a cavalry lance needing both hands for use), had success against standing infantry with their cavalry charges: he writes, 'when they charge in squadrons, hardly any line can stand against them', amid the tense events for Rome in Moesia, in c. 69 A.D. (Histories, Book 1.79). Sorry, I'm deviating.

Regarding the important issue of Xenophon's comment:

Quote:...Here the word used is "?????" here not "??????" unless Perseus has it wrong. Note the word "Kai" in greek which means "and/also". Thus the above should read:

'But when Deinon the polemarch died, and/also Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and/also Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, and/also then the royal bodyguard, and/also the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass'...

OK. Perhaps I get too hasty and verbose amid my enthusiasm. I did fine-tune some my first post, including a comment which one could have interpreted it as my opinion that the 'so called aides of the polemarch' was a description for the royal-bodyguard. No, I never thought that, and my apologies if that affected the above assessment. Incidentally, there is a † in there directly before ??? from your quote of the ancient text. Perhaps a footnote explaining variances?

Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 6.4.13-14,

"...when Cleombrotus began to lead his army against the enemy, in the first place, before the troops under him so much as perceived that he was advancing, the horsemen had already joined battle and those of the Lacedaemonians had speedily been worsted; then in their flight they had fallen foul of their own hoplites, and, besides, the companies of the Thebans were now charging upon them. Nevertheless, the fact that Cleombrotus and his men were at first victorious in the battle may be known from this clear indication: they would not have been able to take him up and carry him off still living, had not those who were fighting in front of him been holding the advantage at that time. But when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the royal bodyguard, the so-called aides of the polemarch, and the others fell back under the pressure of the Theban mass, while those who were on the left wing of the Lacedaemonians, when they saw that the right wing was being pushed back, gave way..."

The Loeb Classical Library's ancient Greek translation to the above indeed has ??? placed 'tent-companions, and Cleonymus' (as the English displays). But ??? is also there in the Greek before 'then the royal bodyguard' (??? ?? ??? ??????) and 'the so-called aides of the polemarch' (??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????????). The Oxford Classical Texts (overall, on par with Loeb as the best source material for our ancient history) does hold with ?? ?????, which was found in the famous manuscripts of the Renaissance (MSS.); but this would mean 'the horses' fell back before the Theban attack upon the Spartan right wing, which doesn't make sense because the cavalry were already vanquished (????? means 'horses, and ?????? is the term for cavalry, in the generic sense). Moreover, the royal bodyguard themselves could not have been on horses, given Xenophon's prior statements in his account that the Spartan cavalry 'were exceedingly poor at that time', followed by, 'it was those who were least strong of body and least ambitious who were mounted on the horses' (6.4.10-11). Now, a footnote does appear in the Loeb Classical Library next to the word ?????? (Xenophon, II, Hellenica: Books 5-7, pg. 170), illustrating that these translators are more thorough and professional than some rigid critics may suggest.

Footnote 1: ??? ?????? Stephanus; ??? ????? MSS.: ???????? Kel.

Karl Schenkl (a top 19th century scholar) suggest that the MSS. ??? ????? conceals some Doric technical term. 'Stephanus' in the footnote refers to Robert Estienne (Robertus Stephanus or Roberti Stephani), the renowned printer and classical scholar of the 16th century, who laid down the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. 'MSS.' is the abbreviation for the manuscripts which Loeb tells us six recognized major ones of the Hellenica were extant by the first half of 15th century. 'Kel.' is Otto Keller, another 19th century scholar; it reads in the preface of the Loeb Hellenica (Vol. I, covering books I-IV; no separate preface exists in Vol. II, which covers our material here, thus the below applies to Vol. II as well), pg. xiv,

"...The present edition adopts the text of Keller, all departures therefrom, as well as important emendations made or accepted by Keller, being maintained in the critical notes..."

Thus, Keller, it seems, accepted the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. I feel, therefore, on whole, the below quoted comment bites the dust, specifically for its proclaimed cut and dry manner of veracity, as well as being too sweeping and all-inclusive. That's a prerogative, though.

Quote:...This is the problem. That assumption, based on next to nothing has then biased all translations having to do with the elite unit...

Why would early 20th century translators, etc., be bias in favor of the Spartan royal bodyguard on such a vast scale, so as to emend the original texts because they intrinsically desire the Hippeis to be presented in a way which glorifies them out of relative proportion? That was a rhetorical question. Howard (and everyone else), last thing (for now), in relation to the Mothaces (you mentioned Lysander). Here is the main ancient historiographic mention of them; we get a clearer picture of their status than we do the Hypomeiones, thus I don't agree that it can be stated so easily that Polybius' comment 'could work equally as well for a Hypomeiones'. This reeks of hypocrisy, from one who's criticizing others about assumptions which have no solid basis. Sorry everyone, I just get a little sensitive over these things. Perhaps the distinction of the Hypomeiones did not preclude those who distinguished themselves from becoming a mercenary Captain-General, but because we do have a passage supporting this for the Mothaces and not for the Hypomeiones, whose only reference describes them as a 'lesser Spartiatae' (hupomeiôn), and in that context they are revealed as some of whom were involved in the attempted coup in 397 B.C. (Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 3.3.6).

We read from Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, Book 6.271e-f, (relaying data from the 25th Book of Phylarchus' Histories, written in the 3rd century B.C., also a source of Polybius),

"...But the Mothaces are foster-brothers of Lacedaemonian citizens. For each of the sons of the citizens has one or two, or even more foster-brothers, according as their circumstances admit. The Mothaces are freemen then, but still not Lacedaemonian citizens; but they share all the education which is given to the free citizens; and they say that Lysander, who defeated the Athenians in the naval battle, was one of that class, having been made a citizen on account of his pre-eminent valour..."

What did I conclude? Probably more tangled uncertainties Big Grin

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

James K MacKinnon
Reply
#37
Quote:Great stuff. My kudos to Paul Bardunias for thinking up a type of specific topic which stimulates a terrific discussion from people who have scholarly viewpoints to offer.

I thank you on behalf of the little Muse whose idea it was.
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
#38
I've now officially lost track of the trajectory of this particular debate, but I just wanted to make a point about method.

Because our evidence for Spartan institutions is both sparse and widely scattered in a variety of different sources, it's always tempting to try to address it synchronically, i.e. by assuming that these institutions were basically static and by trying to cobble together a picture that draws on details from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon in spite of the lengthy stretches of time that separate the periods concerning which these authors wrote and in which they lived. This is only exacerbated by the claim of a bunch of the ancient authors themselves that most of the institutions of Sparta had been created by Lycurgus himself and were for that reason unchanging (a claim which is of course manifestly false when you subject it to testing).

What this means is that the role of the Hippeis could easily have changed over time, particularly as social stratification steadily chipped away at the number of Spartiates who were still able to claim the status of Homoioi. I find it difficult to believe, for example, on the eve of Leuktra, when there were arguably only some 1200-1500 Homoioi, that the Spartan state was willing to allocate bodyguards of 100 men (presumably Homoioi) to each of the kings, AND assign a further 300 to the Hippeis, since this would imply that very few Homoioi were left to be distributed among the infantry morai (they were already obviously thin on the ground, since there were only 700 present at Leuktra, including whoever it was that fought in proximity to Cleombrotus). So, while I think it's entirely possible that the Hippeis and the companies of 100 men who served as royal bodyguards in the early to mid fifth century were distinct from one another, I think it's equally possible that such distinctions had been effaced by the 370s and that the hippeis -- either all 300 of them, or detachments of them -- were serving as a de facto royal guard on the battlefield, who took a customary position around the king. (They MAY also have been more or less coextensive with the agema that Xenophon talks about, though as has already been pointed out, that in itself is a huge can of worms. It depends on what you think about the size and structure of the army in Xenophon's day, and these themselves are controversial problems.)

(Additionally, I suspect rather strongly that the emendation of ??? ????? to ??? ?????? in Xen. Hell. 6.4.14 must be correct, since at this point Xenophon is pretty clearly focused on the fate of the infantry phalanx.)
Reply
#39
It has just occurred to me that my hypothesis that there were 3 x 100 strong bodyguards units might have another origin other than the obvious three Dorian phyles. Lost in the mists of Spartan myth and Lakedaimonian prehistory was the possibility of another or third king or regal clan. These were the Aigeidai. This group were still respected in Sparta well into classical times. Whether this community was originally a pre-Dorian i.e. Akhaian group; or Kadmeans who arrived with the Lakonian Dorians; or another Dorian invading tribe altogether - who were subsumed by the growing fusion of the two communites who came to be represented by the Agiads and Eurypontids, is a moot point. The mythical origins of the dyarchy were entirely reconstructed by the Spartans at some point to allow for the descendency of the two royal houses. There are references to an Aigeid regency of Theras at the time of Aristodemos. I'm taking Gilbert's view here, that the tradition of a once independent kingdom of the Aigeidai was adopted in the official legend at a time when this independent kingdom no longer existed, in order to give expression to the remembrance of the ancient power and dignity of the clan. That a dynasty of Aigeid (as opposed to Agiad - I know, this gets confusing) kings did once exist in Sparta, is perhaps proved to us by an inscription from Thera from the tomb of a priest of Apollo Karneios, a priest-hood apparently hereditary in the family of the Aigeidai. In that epitaph the dead priest claims to be descended from Spartan kings.

So perhaps the 3 x 100 sub-groups of the 300 collective represent the Agiadai, Eurypontidai and Aigeidai respectively? In that respect each king would indeed have 100 bodyguards - although one group would clearly have other duties during peacetime since their nominal royal no longer existed. However, during wartime the 3 x 100 = 300 x 1 and serves the singular king chosen to command on that particular occasion.

Just a thought...

This is also interesting:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/docume ... 3_12_e.pdf

Also curious (due to being the first time I have ever read somebody state that the 300 were royal bodyguards as 150 men per king!):

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Spartan-Army

(about halfway down under Composition)

Oh and BTW James - yes the Wirral is near Liverpool. I live rather nearer to Chester as well (still sporting significant Roman remains).
[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
#40
Quote:... P.S. The title of this thread refers to what Google asks you if try to google 'Hippeis'

If ... *













[size=85:31a613ow](* I've always wanted to do that!)[/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
#41
Howard wrote:
Quote:You'd better get onto Wikipedia then PMB!!! There's some serious editing/explaining/revising needed there:

...as well ask him to clean out the Augean Stables* !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wikipaedia simply follows a long line of 'experts' who have slavishly copied one another, without really looking at what the original sources actually say.......as Paul B. remarks, this Greek 'Myth' has become so entrenched that translators equate and translate 'Hippeis = Guard', and as we have seen, it simply is not so !!

The confusion that faulty translation causes can readily be seen in James post above.......

Quote:'then the royal bodyguard' (kai hoi men hippoi)
is a good example of a totally incorrect translation, here translating 'hippoi' incorrectly as 'Royal Bodyguard'.

Quote:The original Greek text, to reiterate from my first post, clearly reads ????????? (doruphoroi in the modern Greek, from Perseus.tufts) for the spearmen of his body-guard. Forgive my nitpicking, but the wording is 'spearmen of his body-guard', thus a part of it which, quite possibly, Agesilaus needed to accompany him with 'all speed'. Of course, I need to wary with such an assessment for an army which was not one of thoroughly combined arms. Wouldn't all of the body-guard be spearmen, in an army of hoplites? As for the contingent of hundred in Herodotus (The Histories, Book 6.56), that could merely be the contingent of one of the three Dorian tribes, and not necessarily a different 'entity', if you will.
Here is an example of where faulty translation has led to confusion: 'doruphoroi' does not mean 'spearmen of his bodyguard'.
It literally means 'spear-bearers/carriers', and came to mean ( from the days of the Tyrants) 'Bodyguard'. A more correct literal translation would be "...and the spearmen, fully armed, accompanied him..." or less literally but more accurately "...and the Bodyguard, fully armed, accompanied him..."

There is thus no question of spearmen being 'part of' the Bodyguard. The phrase used is merely a device to avoid having to explain what I have just set out ,and convey to the reader the sense of the original.

Quote:Thus, Keller accepted the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. I feel, therefore, on whole, the below quoted comment bites the dust, specifically for its proclaimed cut and dry manner of veracity, and far too sweeping and all-inclusive. That a prerogative, though.

PMBardunias wrote:
...This is the problem. That assumption, based on next to nothing has then biased all translations having to do with the elite unit...

I don't see the logic here. 'Hippeis' or 'Hippoi', neither can be accurately translated as 'Royal Bodyguard' ( 'Hippeis': lit; 'riders/knights' c.f. german 'Ritter' for similar use of the word horsemen/riders to denote a social class;
'Hippoi' : lit; 'Horse' in the plural c.f. 'Horse' as a synonym for 'cavalry' in English; cavalry/chivalry in turn deriving from french 'chevalier' lit; horseman = knight)

Far from "biting the dust", Paul B.'s comment is shown to be correct. An assumption ( Hippeis = Bodyguard), based on no evidence other than at best a possible implication, has been allowed to become "fact", when clearly it is not. The evidence clearly points the other way, for all three major sources for the period are careful NOT to equate the two, and distinguish between them, even to the extent of referring to the Hippeis fighting in the vicinity of the King, but carefully avoiding calling them his guard. Notice that Thucydides (V.72), speaking of first Mantinea, tells us "King Agis positioned himself with the three hundred troops called the knights." The King went and stood/fought with the 'Hippeis'? He went to them? Hardly how one would speak of a King and his bodyguard ! As seen in Xenophon's description of Leuctra, the 'Hippeis' fall back, then the rest, after Cleombrotus and 'those around him' are killed/wounded, as Paul B. has shown, which does not fit a 'Guard' surrounding their King, more like the King and 'those around him' were adjacent to the Hippeis, as at Mantinea. Both authors are at pains to NOT call the 'Hippeis' a bodyguard.
This implies to me that had you walked up to one and called him a 'Royal Bodyguard', he might respond ; "No, certainly not, we do not follow the King. The Kings do not rule in Sparta. We Hippeis are the flower of Spartan manhood, picked individually as the best, and as such recognised by our Peers/Homioi as the cream/finest unit of our Army. The King may choose to come and fight alongside Sparta's best troops/finest unit, as is natural, but we are not subordinate to him."

Please can we have no more citations of second hand material which simply repeats wrong assumptions and incorrect translations? Or, at least, assumptions for which there is no persuasive evidence.

* "Augean Stables" a reference to Greek Myth. Herakles was given 'Twelve Labours', each an impossible task. The Fifth Labour was to clean the vast Stables of King Augeas, which Herakles succeeded in doing by diverting a river...
"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
#42
Quote:The evidence clearly points the other way, for all three major sources for the period are careful NOT to equate the two, and distinguish between them, even to the extent of referring to the Hippeis fighting in the vicinity of the King, but carefully avoiding calling them his guard. Notice that Thucydides (V.72), speaking of first Mantinea, tells us "King Agis positioned himself with the three hundred troops called the knights." The King went and stood/fought with the 'Hippeis'? He went to them? Hardly how one would speak of a King and his bodyguard ! As seen in Xenophon's description of Leuctra, the 'Hippeis' fall back, then the rest, after Cleombrotus and 'those around him' are killed/wounded, as Paul B. has shown, which does not fit a 'Guard' surrounding their King, more like the King and 'those around him' were adjacent to the Hippeis, as at Mantinea. Both authors are at pains to NOT call the 'Hippeis' a bodyguard.

It's worth pointing out that Thucydides, at least, is a little bit more specific than the translation you give here would indicate. A more direct translation would read something like "But with the rest of the line, and especially with the middle, where the King Agis was and, around him, those called the three hundred Hippeis [??? ???? ????? ?? ?????????? ????? ??????????], the Lakedaimonians fell on the older men of the Argives and upon the so-called Five Lochoi and upon the Kleonnaioi and the Orneatai and upon those of the Athenians stationed alonside..." (5.72.4).

Often, the construction ???? followed by a person's name or pronoun in the accusative case refers to that person's colleagues, followers, or retinue, so Thucydides may actually be saying that the Hippeis were in some way attending on the king -- i.e. functioning as a royal guard. Even if we chose not to read it in this particular way in this passage, it still really does convey the idea that the Hippeis were fighting *around* Agis, i.e. that he was embedded in some way within their ranks.
Reply
#43
Good post, Ariobarzanes! Smile
" But with rest of their army, and especially the centre*, where King Agis was himself with his Guard or "in the midst of his Bodyguard",
but rather the Hippeis are associated with and part of "the rest of their army" ( i.e. not the defeated Brasidioi, Neodamodeis and Sciritae)

* The King will have been on the right of the 'Spartan' army, with the allied Arcadians, Maenilians and Tegeans stretching away to his right, thus placing him in the centre portion of the Army as a whole.
"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
#44
A few points that need to be cleared up:

Quote:I feel Hippeis should be capitalized, and hippeis, with regards to a horsemen in a generic sense (int the ancient Greek world), should not.

(Additionally, I suspect rather strongly that the emendation of ??? ????? to ??? ?????? in Xen. Hell. 6.4.14 must be correct, since at this point Xenophon is pretty clearly focused on the fate of the infantry phalanx.)

None of the original members of this thread were arguing that the Hippeis were cavalry in the period we are discussing, the elaborate argument to prove this is nice, but unneeded. They surely originated from cavalry, more specifically those who could afford horses, but just as surely were not cavalry by the date we are discussing.

Quote:I don't have a rigid problem with the challenging of academics, but I don't feel it should be done for the intrinsic 'challenge' of it (no accusation here from me, just sharing my beliefs on the issue), and I feel we should be a little extra sure we understand fully what they're stating, and check for a larger context.

I have no yen for an "intrinsic challenge." If I did I would be writing the authors in question, not discussing it here. I am merely pointing out for the sake of this argument that the term Hippeis should not be slavishly rendered as "royal guard" as has been done many times within this thread in a cycle of circular reasoning.


Quote: but this would mean 'the horses' fell back before the Theban attack upon the Spartan right wing, which doesn't make sense as the cavalry were already vanquished, and the royal bodyguard themselves could not have been on horses, given Xenophon's prior statements in this account of his that the Spartan cavalry 'were exceedingly poor at that time', followed by 'those who were least strong of body and least ambitious who were mounted on the horses' (6.4.10-11). Now, a footnote does appear in Loeb next to the word ??????, illustrating that these translators are more thorough and professional than some rigid critics may suggest.
Footnote 1: ??? ?????? Stephanus; ??? ????? MSS.: ???????? Kel.
Karl Schenkl (a top 19th century scholar) suggest that the MSS. ??? ????? conceals some Doric technical term.

Again you are hung up on cavalry. I'm with Schenkl. "Hippoi" was probably the Spartan term. No author was better qualified than Xanthippos to know them or more likely to use to show off his knowledge by sprinkling them into his work- e.g the great "Spolas" debate. The fact that it could be confused with the actual cavalry at this battle, and that this would obviously be a mistake, makes it less likely to me that this would be a corruption of the text.

Quote:Thus, Keller accepted the emendation of ??? ?????? from ??? ?????. I feel, therefore, on whole, the below quoted comment bites the dust, specifically for its proclaimed cut and dry manner of veracity, and far too sweeping and all-inclusive. That a prerogative, though.


So because Keller decided to accept an emendation of one term that means horsemen for another that means horsemen, both of which can equally well serve for an elite unit of infantry whose origins were a class of horsemen, you have "proven" what exactly?


Quote:Howard (and everyone else), last thing (for now), in relation to the Mothaces (you mentioned Lysander), here is the main ancient mention of them; we get a clearer picture of their status than we do the Hypomeiones, thus I don't agree that it can be stated so easily that Polybius' comment 'could work equally as well for a Hypomeiones'. This reeks of hypocrisy, hence theof criticizing of others about assumptions which have no solid basis. Sorry everyone, I just get a little sensitive over these things. Perhaps the distinction of the Hypomeiones did not preclude those who distinguished themselves from becoming a mercenary Captain-General, but because we do have a passage supporting this for the Mothaces and not for the Hypomeiones, who are only mentioned as an 'lesser' class (hupomeiôn), some of whom were involved in the attempted coup in 397 B.C. (Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 3.3.6)

We know only that he was “brought up in the Spartan discipline”. This leaves us with many equally likely options. He could be a Mothakes, a non-spartan brought into the Agoge by a citizen sponsor. Of these he could be either of the two categories below:

Hellenica 5.3.8
Quote:Having come to this conclusion, they sent out Agesipolis, the king, as commander, and with him, as they had sent with Agesilaus to Asia, thirty Spartiatae. [9] There followed with him also many of the Perioeci as volunteers, men of the better class, and aliens who belonged to the so-called foster-children4 of Sparta, and sons of the Spartiatae by Helot women, exceedingly finelooking men, not without experience of the good gifts of the state.

Thus Mothakes could be either the children of worthy Xenoi, probably usually pereoic, but also others like Xenophon’s sons, or bastard children of full Spartiates. Lysander and Glyippos were both probably Mothakes.

The other class of non-spartiates whom have gone through the Agoge are those Spartiates who have lost their status after childhood due to an inability to pay mess dues or loss of Spartiate status due to other impropriety. Thus becoming first generation Hypomeiones. The Hypomeion Cinadon himself was given command, hence the trap laid for him, so clearly they were well trained enough to serve as mercenaries.

Perhaps a subset of the Hypomeiones may be those exiles who were disenfranchised, like Dracontius of Anabasis fame- “who had become an exile from his country when quite a boy, for having involuntarily killed a child by striking him with a xuele.”

It has been suggested that Xanthippos may have been on the wrong side of a shift which Hellenistic king the Spartans supported, causing him to lose his status and perhaps become an exile.

On what can you base a preference for one of these? And be sure that your criteria does not “reek of hypocrisy.” You will of course refrain from using such terms in connection with me in the future. Perhaps you have mistaken this for a Total War forum?
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
#45
Quote:Good post, Ariobarzanes! Smile
" But with rest of their army, and especially the centre*, where King Agis was himself with his Guard or "in the midst of his Bodyguard",
but rather the Hippeis are associated with and part of "the rest of their army" ( i.e. not the defeated Brasidioi, Neodamodeis and Sciritae)

* The King will have been on the right of the 'Spartan' army, with the allied Arcadians, Maenilians and Tegeans stretching away to his right, thus placing him in the centre portion of the Army as a whole.

Sorry about the omission of my real name -- it's fixed now.

Anyway, if the question is "Were the Hippeis primarily a royal guard" then I think the answer must be "no", since they seem to have been constituted as a "civic" body and since after all we see them functioning in other capacities (e.g. in the Cinnadon affair, in which one of the Hippagretai seems to have despatched some of the Hippeis with Cinnadon on his "mission" [X. H. 3.3.9]).

But that said, it's perfectly defensible to argue that from 1st Mantinea onward, the Hippeis customarily fought "in attendance on the King" or "around the King" (???? ??? ???????) when they were on the field, whether as a whole body or in a sizable detachment. After all, that's exactly where we find them in those little bits of evidence in which it's possible to identify their tactical location on the field: at 1st Mantinea, where they fought "in attendance on Agis", and at Leuktra, where Xenophon's language seems to suggest that we should consider them among those who fought "in attendance on Kleombrotos" (???? ??? ???????????, ?.?.6.4.13, assuming we should accept the emendment from hippoi to Hippeis).
Reply


Forum Jump: