Hippeis, not Hippies

[PMBardunias]

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.

I find that a rational assessment based on what little evidence we have. I would caution that if there were a place of honor along any given battle-line, then this might attract both the King and an elite unit. They could be forming on the location, not each other. Thus causality becomes murky, for that place would be customarily where "the king and the hippeis stand."

Would you agree, given your assessment, that calling the Hippeis a "Royal bodyguard" and the Hippagretai choosers/leaders of the body guard is obscuring their full purpose and role in society?

[Ariobarzanes]

Would you agree, given your assessment, that calling the Hippeis a "Royal bodyguard" and the Hippagretai choosers/leaders of the body guard is obscuring their full purpose and role in society?

Yes, I can agree with that.

[Paullus Scipio]

Ah!.... we appear to have reached a consensus, which is always pleasant! ( J.K. Anderson agrees with this view too!) D

I'm afraid I'm going to be a little pedantic in tidying up a couple of minor points......

Firstly it would be incorrect to call the origins of Hippeis as 'cavalry'......
Paul B. wrote:

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.

.... is quite correct in that the name denotes 'horse-owning' rather cavalry as a military unit who fight from horseback.
( We are specifically told that Sparta first raised units of cavalry in 424 BC - Thuc IV.55.2 - some 400, divided according to Xenophon into 6 'Morai' like the infantry. c.f. Athens, where there were originally 300 'Hippeis'/actual horsemen, as opposed to the class - these horsemen had no military function, but had an important role in festivals etc.
In 442, probably at Perikles instigation, Athens raised its first Cavalry, 1,000 strong; like Sparta raising one Tribal unit (phyle) for each Tribal Hoplite regiment (Taxeis) )

Another slight inaccuracy comes from those who think of 'Hypomeiones'/inferiors as simply being disenfranchised 'Homio'/peers/equals, who had been through the agoge, but lost their 'kleroi'/land allotment for some reason. We have only one example of the use of this word - Xenophon's casual and famous reference to "Hypomeiones' in regard to Kinadon's conspiracy "...they were in the plot with everyone else - 'helots'/serfs, 'neodamodeis'/newly freed , 'hypomeiones'/inferiors and 'periokoi'/neighbouring townsmen, since all these people showed clearly enough, if there was any mention of the Spartiates/Homioi/equals, that they would be glad to eat them up raw"

It seems to me clear that Xenophon here is setting out all the classes of Lakedaemonian society, in rising order, and that 'hypomeiones' encompasses all Spartan free men who are not 'Homioi'.
Thus we have in descending order:
'Homioi'/equals/peers = the fully enfranchised citizens who vote and participate in government, possess 'kleroi'/land allotments worked by 'helots'/serfs leaving them free to be full-time soldiers.
'Hypomeiones'/inferiors = All other free male Spartans ( including but not limited to dis-enfranchised Homioi), not having a share of the city's wealth in the form of land - a 'kleros'/estate, and therefore having no say/vote in the government.
'Neodamodeis'/ newly freed = former Helots freed from being bound to a 'Kleros' in return for service as a Hoplite in the Army.
'Helots'/serfs = serfs, but not slaves, owned by the state and who worked the land on the estate they were attached to. They had to render their Lord a certain fixed amount of the produce, but could retain the rest. They could apparently own land and amass and retain wealth. They could only be freed or permitted to leave their estate by the State.

Beneath these, presumably, were slaves proper, such as existed everywhere in Greece.

[PMBardunias]

Another slight inaccuracy comes from those who think of 'Hypomeiones'/inferiors as simply being disenfranchised 'Homio'/peers/equals, who had been through the agoge, but lost their 'kleroi'/land allotment for some reason....It seems to me clear that Xenophon here is setting out all the classes of Lakedaemonian society, in rising order, and that 'hypomeiones' encompasses all Spartan free men who are not 'Homioi'.

This is why I labeled a man who went through the Agoge and later lost his franchise a "first generation Hypomeiones." But we best not throw out the baby with the bath water. There were many hypomeiones who either once had Spartiate status, or whose fathers and grandfathers did recently enough for the memory to sting. Spartans married late and died in battle which surely cut the population, but the oliganthropy in the 4th and 3rd c was more a function of the inability of many to meet the fiscal obligations of citizenship. This was hastened by the loss of Messenia. Thus the drop in Spartiates is mirrored by an increase in Hypomeiones. Plutarch refers to them as an "indigent and disenfranchised mob." Compared with the number of Spartiates, the number of recently disenfranchised might be substantial even if a small percentage of the total number of people living in Sparta. The informer on Cinadon describes 70 some Spartiates to more than 4,000 others in the spartan market-place, but we have no idea what percentage of these are hypomeiones. What of the non-recently disenfranchised, who made up this body? Presumably those decendants of Spartiates who had long ago lost their rights and indigenes who missed out on the original Kleroi allotment.

The larger problem is that we don't know how inclusive the concept of Hypomeiones was. Presumably those who could not afford pheiditia dues, but also "tresantes", cowards, and men who for one reason or another did not get picked up by a pheiditia were given this status. Would Xenoi living in Sparta be a subset or a seperate group? What about those exiled? Often they did not go all that far away, up into Arcadia for example. What would the status of a man like Dracontus have been to a Spartiate when they met.

Then there is the whole problem of how and if you get your spartiate staus back once you come into some money, and what happens to you socially at that point. Exiles come and go with the wind of politics, so presumably there was some way of getting them back into their old phiditia or new ones.

As to them being labeled in ascending order, I have seen this written many times, but I suggest that perhaps this is not so. He may have written them in the order shown because he started with Helots, perhaps because they are the lowest, but maybe be cause they are the most in number, so it is logical to next mention enfranchised helots. Then he mentions Hypomeiones and Periocoi. This could be a simple, near/far, distinction. If asked who lives in north America most canadians will say "Canadians and Americans and Mexicans". Periocoi need not have been higher status in Xenophon's mind or in fact. Afterall, how many Periocoi bore a Scytale and ordered Hippeis.

[Ghostmojo]

I agree with the vertical stratification of Spartan society and one can easily see how the loss of Messenia meant a goodly chunk of Spartiates suddenly were deprived of their estates, through no specific fault of their own. The increase in Hypomeiones clearly gains momentum at this point, and the perennial land-reform/redistribution issues come to the fore continually thereafter, right down until Agis IV and Kleomenes III finally try to address them. I wonder, though before this really kicked in just how many Hypomeiones there were, and what about the other smaller groups of technically not-quite-Spartiates like the Mothakes, Nothoi and Tresantes? Lysander was called a Spartiate and achieved great things (and wished to go all the way), and yet seems to have been a Mothax. That might irk some full-blooded Spartiates who had fallen upon hard times to see the half-blood citizen of questionable parentage rising through the ranks whilst they slid. The Kinadon conspiracy may well have been the tip of a growing iceberg. One wonders why a tresante would ever want to return to Sparta considering the non-person status that awaited them - unless mechanisms existed readily for them to ascend the ladder once more. There are also other smaller cliques like the Trophimoi Xenoi and Syntrophoi - the latter of whom Agis IV thought more than worthy of admission to full Spartiate status. As time went on this business clearly became ever more complex, but also as the Lykourgan system broke down, there seems to have been a developing flexibility - in fact a very necessary one - to deal with population issues. Where would the Trophimoi sit I wonder? Non-Spartans allowed the considerable 'priviledge' of a Spartan upbringing surely never became fully citizens of the Apella? However, surviving the agoge and serving under arms, if required, must have merited some special status?

[PMBardunias]

All good points Howard, and questions I'd love answers to. We know very little about all of these "middle" classes. After all we only have one reference to Hypomeiones. We do know that "worthy" foreigners were allowed citizenship from a very early date. The flip side of this is that resident aliens were kicked out of Sparta en masse at times. Even if Hypomeiones all derived from from families that lost franchise, there could be very many by the 4th-3rd century. Social pressures conspired to force Spartiates to have very few children, since late marriage and the need to split kleroi as inheritance were poor incentives for breeding- hence the official bonus for having many. Freed from this pressure, hypomeiones may have had many more children.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

The informer on Cinadon describes 70 some Spartiates to more than 4,000 others in the spartan market-place, but we have no idea what percentage of these are hypomeiones. What of the non-recently disenfranchised, who made up this body? Presumably those decendants of Spartiates who had long ago lost their rights and indigenes who missed out on the original Kleroi allotment.

It is no surprise that there were so few 'Homioi' in the market-place, other than the King, Ephors and members of Concil plus about 40 others, who were presumably there on 'official business', for Plutarch tells us"
"Life of Lycurgus" 25

Those who were under thirty years of age did not go into the market-place at all, but had their household wants supplied at the hands of their kinsfolk and lovers. And it was disreputable for the elderly men to be continually seen loitering there, instead of spending the greater part of the day in the places of exercise that are called "leschai."

[transl'n courtesy of Bill Thayer's 'Lacus Curtius' site]
Nor did they 'officially' possess money, so one can readily understand that 'Homioi' did not wish to be seen there.
As to the 4,000 in the market, there will have been domestic and visiting foreigners -traders,sailors etc and we don't know if this number includes women and all the slaves, for both would certainly be present in a market.

Then there is the whole problem of how and if you get your spartiate staus back once you come into some money, and what happens to you socially at that point. Exiles come and go with the wind of politics, so presumably there was some way of getting them back into their old phiditia or new ones.

I don't think 'coming into money' would help, since 'kleroi' could not be bought, but were allocated by the state. Mess fees were paid in kind, from the produce of the 'Kleros' so creating an impossible 'catch 22' ....once you failed to be able to pay your mess dues, and presumably your Kleros was allocated to someone else (?)there really was no way back, even if, as a Hypomeione, one became wealthy.

The larger problem is that we don't know how inclusive the concept of Hypomeiones was. Presumably those who could not afford pheiditia dues, but also "tresantes", cowards, and men who for one reason or another did not get picked up by a pheiditia were given this status. Would Xenoi living in Sparta be a subset or a seperate group? What about those exiled? Often they did not go all that far away, up into Arcadia for example. What would the status of a man like Dracontus have been to a Spartiate when they met.

As I said, the free men of Sparta were apparently divided into two - 'Homioi'/Peers/Equals and 'Hypomeiones'/Inferiors i.e. inferior to a 'Homioi' which must have meant EVERYONE else - disenfranchised, the artisans of the city, all free workers etc. The others you refer to would all be sub-groups of 'Hypomeiones' i.e. all non-Homioi.

As to them being labeled in ascending order, I have seen this written many times, but I suggest that perhaps this is not so. He may have written them in the order shown because he started with Helots, perhaps because they are the lowest, but maybe be cause they are the most in number, so it is logical to next mention enfranchised helots.

If in order of numbers, this might amount to the same thing; 'Helots', 'Hypomeiones' and 'Homioi' - the problem with this idea is that there were only a few thousand 'neodamodeis'/ newly freed, and presumably only a few hundred visiting 'perioikoi' gentlemen from neighbouring towns, so number order is unlikely....

[PMBardunias]

It is no surprise that there were so few 'Homioi' in the market-place, other than the King, Ephors and members of Concil plus about 40 others, who were presumably there on 'official business'

More a suprise that there were so many "others". It gives a glimpse of the life of the polis that was occuring around the Spartiates.

I don't think 'coming into money' would help, since 'kleroi' could not be bought, but were allocated by the state.

Kleroi were regularly bought by this date, which was the heart of the oliganthropy. Mortgaging your kleroi was one of the few ways a Spartiate could raise cash and the rules had been changed by an Ephor whose name escapes me so that you could "give" kleroi to those who were not your children. Now it is umlikely that a hypomeiones could buy one, but it is hard to say. What happened when exiles, who presumably were stripped of their kleroi, returned as political factions changed?

once you failed to be able to pay your mess dues, and presumably your Kleros was allocated to someone else (?)there really was no way back, even if, as a Hypomeione, one became wealthy.

Is there evidence that your kleros was stripped? Presumably the mojor reason one was unable to pay dues is that, although you could not chop up a kleros and sell it piece-meal, you could subdivide its produce. Once you owed so much of its production to others that you could no longer pay your dues, you were in trouble.

As I said, the free men of Sparta were apparently divided into two

On what are you basing this? Clearly the "free" neodamodeis were not subsumed under the title of hypomeiones. It would not suprise me at all if the Spartans had a tortuously intricate system of subdivisions. I am thinking of the stratification of society in the antebellum american south, where there were multiple class levels of "whites" and then a truly complex system of "blacks"- subdividing them by percentage of white blood in their heritage.

If in order of numbers, this might amount to the same thing; 'Helots', 'Hypomeiones' and 'Homioi' - the problem with this idea is that there were only a few thousand 'neodamodeis'/ newly freed,

I should have been clearer. I did not mean that the whole list is in order of frequency, simply that he started with the largest group. Once he mentions helots it would be natural to mention a sub-set of helots before moving on- as in cattle, oxen, sheep, and goats as opposed to cattle, sheep, oxen, and goats.

[Spartan JKM]

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone (and happiness to those whom it doesn't really apply). My apologies, if anyone noticed; my last post was a mess with unfinished sentences and grammatical errors. I was in a hurry and wrote too fast. Anyway, I edited much of it. With the issue of Cleombrotus I and his men at Leuctra, I'll reiterate as we pick up some more there. Moreover, I haven't read anything since my last post, so forgive me if I run through with the semblance of not paying attention to others. I just want to post this as quickly as possible (a rough draft from earlier). Pressed for time before I get called away for Thanksgiving (my mother is like, 'not today with that stuff!). I'll try to exercise a less hasty approach, though, so I can make some clear indication what I am trying to exactly state in such a convoluted topic. I can be guilty of the hypocrisy of getting on others if they aren't clear enough.

To add to our detail with the etymology of ????? and ?????? in Xenophon's opening statements of Leuctra, the cavalry who joined battle and were speedily worsted are described as ??????, the same word for the royal bodyguard (hence the retained title of 'Horsemen' for the royal bodyguard). Thus if ????? remained in Book 6.4.14 of the texts of the Hellenica which it was first found, it would read,

"...when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the horses, 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..."

Of course, that may not be conclusive because somebody may explain that the original ancient Greek doesn't necessarily and precisely mean that, and perhaps add that English translations didn't fully understand this. Well, my retort would be that the best native translators in linguistics of all kinds would have been consulted. But, can I prove that?

...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. Mistakes are not always a result of some agenda behind them. But I disagree.

…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 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 polemarchs 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…

What difference does that make? Of course the first men listed were not with the Hippeis. How does that signify anything against an argument that the Hippeis had both functions of a Royal Bodyguard when not in battle next to the king and a corps d'elite on the battlefield? Here they obviously were functioning as the latter (but there's no substantial evidence they were the same who performed both; I am aware of that). With the Battle of Leuctra, Xenophon displays a limited patchiness which cannot conform to an 'inverted pyramid' of text arrangement. They don't necessarily 'die first', other than almost certainly the polemarch, who was personally with the first mora; they all died contemporaneously in the action which threw the entire Spartan right out of sync (the Theban left was anchored by the Sacred Band, which probably hit Cleombrotus on his right side as he attempted to stabilize things, or, if he re establish enough order, fell on him to prevent his attempt to turn the Theban left ). I don't feel that the English translations misrepresented anything, even in some clumsily inadvertent manner; the original texts were merely transliterated concerning these few sentences.

Xenophon does reveal, however, the defining overview of the novel Theban strategy which won the battle - that they were 'massed not less than fifty shields deep, calculating that if they conquered that part of the army which was around the king (the Spartan right), all the rest of it would be easy to overcome' (Hellenica, Book 6.4.12). However, it surely wasn’t that simple, as Spartan ranks could maintain discipline on a singular level, and the intricacies behind othismos is a debate amid academia which reveals no clearer verdict than another. But that the Spartan lines on their right were broken by a concentration of force is not in question. If Epaminondas couldn't overwhelm the Spartan right quickly enough, his refused right could be outflanked by the Spartan left. As it unraveled, the Spartans on their left couldn’t be brought to bear before the cohesion among their elite was smashed.

In conjunction with apprising us of the Theban concentration of mass on their left, Plutarch tells us that Epaminondas advanced his army echeloned left (Life of Pelopidas, Ch. 23), hence his weakened center and right (in terms of quantity) were refused from battle, and he marched diagonally. This novel adoption was masked with his cavalry (perhaps in concert with the hammipoi, though we read of them specifically only at Mantinea nine years later with Epaminondas), the latter used to create a dust screen and clear away the Spartan cavalry (conjecture). But as much as he needed to conceal his intentions from the Spartans initially (he perhaps dressed off his entire front, in addition to the dust screen created from his cavalry), he needed them to see his right moving in a manner to avoid battle, hence the Spartans would move forward from their left and divide their ranks. The Spartans, too, probably had their cavalry out in front to create a screen. Thus cavalry and light-trooped screens hid both from each other for some time. Epaminondas surely figured his horsemen would vanquish their Spartan counterparts, but also presumed Cleombrotus wouldn’t be too concerned after that occurred, as he figured the Spartan king would be confident with the main upcoming infantry clash. As it turned out, it was a handsome bonus for the Thebans that, whatever the details and preplanned intentions from either side with their cavalry, many of the Spartan mounts ran afoul with their infantry when they were scattered by the superior Boeotian horsemen. Thus, with a vision of throwing the Spartan right into confusion with his concentration of force, they already were afflicted a little before he hit them (Polybius would presumably describe such an occurrence as ????). But geniuses like Epaminondas (also a pragmatist to the full, I'm sure) certainly have many contingencies figured into their plans, and that the Spartan horse could be defeated and scattered, resulting in some of them thrown back into their own ranks (horses could surely become unmanageable at times under battle stress), was a likelihood.

Both Xenophon and Plutarch tell the battle from opposite views of the antagonists, but Plutarch’s Life of Pelopidas centers more on Pelopidas' role and the action of the Sacred Band (if only we had Plutarch's Life of Epaminondas!); the Theban Sacred Band's position and action escapes us, but it seems likely that Pelopidas hit the Spartan right, amid the melee they were already disadvantaged with, before they could turn the Theban left, thus preventing what they achieved at Mantinea in 418 B.C. The only discrepancy from Diodorus is an almost sure fancy about a Spartan attack on both Theban wings with their phalanx in crescent formation (Bibliotheca Historica, Book 15.55.3). Of course this part of the army which was around the king, in this sense, constituted far more than the 300 Hippeis, whom we’ve been touching on repeatedly in this thread as being 'around the king'.

Sure enough, the battle was decided on the Spartan right with a concentration of force, which in turn created a ripple effect along the rest of the Spartan army. But overall, he mentions nothing of planned tactics or dispositions (we must filter and infer from Diodorus and Plutarch to reconstruct more of the battle the best we can), and never mentions the names of Epaminondas or Pelopidas. Moreover, Plutarch and Diodorus never mention the cavalry on either side (albeit Plutarch’s main account would be in his Life of Epaminondas, now lost). Diodorus does not mention the cavalry at Cynoscephalae (364 B.C.) either, where we know it was paramount; thus his non-mention of cavalry action at Chaeronea likely means very little for sticklers of the 'clear evidence factor', in terms of the advocates' arguments against Philip II's cavalry tactics there. In the field of forensic science, the absence of evidence is ultimately a deciding factor; that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is applicable to ancient historiography, but not a license to entertain ourselves with historical novels. There will always remain some loose ends and unanswered questions, but I hope a middle ground (not literally!) can be found. But the path of discourse to all of it can be a lot of fun. Deep studies, if I may speak for many, in what we very much enjoy can be extremely gratifying.

The four Spartan morai were deployed on their right, and Deinon was one of the polemarchoi who perished; it is highly unlikely he was commanding anyone and anywhere but the mora in front, whom the Lacedaemonian cavalry ran afoul over, which aided the Theban advance. Sphodrias had been a harmost (????????, a Spartan military governor and garrison commander of his charge) at the beginning of the decade, and got himself into trouble by raiding Athenian territory (our sources tell mixed stories) without the authority of the Ephors. His enterprise went awry, and his retreat involved much plunder in Attica. He was tried in his absence, but acquitted through the influence of Agesilaus II, whose son Archidamus was an intimate friend of Cleonymus, the son of Shodrias. Hence, perhaps, Xenophon’s isolated mention of these figures at Leuctra, but not Archidamus (whom Diodorus states was there, commanding the Spartan left), was presumably to toe a certain line; part of his brief account was to spare his best friend Agesilaus any shame. We never read anywhere else in the ancient literature of a polemarch’s 'aide-de-camp'. Sphodrias’ role at the battle was probably that of an escort to the king (Cleombrotus had given him his command as harmost at Thespiae, in 378 B.C.), in making personal emends, etc.

Anyway, there's no way to deduce from Xenophon's account over any detailed dispositions which can confirm or deny anything regarding our broad question about the Hippeis; Xenophon does tell us that the royal bodyguard was there as the part of 'and the others' he mentions as giving way in the face of the Theban mass, and they would have been at no other place than proximate to Cleombrotus (but not necessarily in his tent beforehand, nor rubbing up against him in battle). The Hippeis formed their own separate corps in battle, whereas the other hebontes (those who were not among the 100 chosen from each of the three hippagretai) surely 'were brigaded indiscriminately into the normal army units' (cf. Nigel M. Kennell, The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education and Culture in Ancient Sparta, pg. 129). But as for them carrying out other duties other than what the Theban Sacred Band were formed for, we simply cannot know: if Herodotus' comment of the escort for Themistocles was within a closer timeframe to, or even within, the late 5th and early 4th century B.C. (when restructuring of the lochoi and morai, etc., took place in some form), then we may argue more strongly for the verity that they functioned as both. But a good question may spring up that, if the 300 Hippeis were on campaign with a Spartan king, who was the 'royal bodyguard' on duty with the other king at home (remember, a law in Sparta passed that both kings could not co-command, as of c. 506 B.C.)?

Athenaeus helps us again with a passage from another historian, Agatharchides of Cnidus (fl. 2nd century B.C.), from the work Affairs in Europe:

Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, Book 12, 550b-d,

"...Agatharchides, in the 16th book of his History of Europe, says that Magas, who was king of Cyrene for fifty years, and who never had any wars, but spent all his time in luxury, became, towards the end of his life, so immensely bulky and burdensome to himself, that he was at last actually choked by his fat, from the inactivity of his body, and the enormous quantity of food which he consumed. But among the Lacedaemonians, the same man relates, in his 27th book, that it is thought a proof of no ordinary infamy if any one is of an unmanly appearance, or if any one appears at all inclined to have a large belly; as the young men are exhibited naked before the ephors every ten days. And the ephors used every day to take notice both of the clothes and bedding of the young men; and very properly..."

As for where Cleombrotus and the men around his person where stationed:

Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Book 13.6,

"When the King leads, provided that no enemy appears, no one precedes him except the Sciritae and the mounted vedettes [ie, mounted sentries]. But if ever they think there will be fighting, he takes the lead of the first regiment and wheels to the right, until he is between two regiments and two colonels. The troops that are to support these are marshaled by the senior member of the King's staff. The staff consists of all peers who are members of the royal mess, seers, doctors, fluteplayers, commanding officers and any volunteers who happen to be present. Thus nothing that has to be done causes any difficulty, for everything is duly provided for."

The above data from Xenophon is all we have to make an estimate that Cleombrotus was positioned on the right wing of his army with his 'friends' and Hippeis (??????) at Leuctra, almost certainly positioned between the first and second morai. John K. Anderson and John Buckler are certain of this, and John F. Lazenby supports its plausibility (Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, pg. 218; The Theban Hegemony, 371-362 B.C., pg. 63; The Spartan Army, pg. 156).

...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...

OK. 'Of course there was' a distinction, or there 'easily could have been' a distinction? Sorry. I know what you mean, and you could be right, but what is certain is that Thebes and Argos were not Sparta, who was the most unique among the ancient Greeks in her ways. There wasn't any Theban 'king', but the four boeotarchs were commanders of the mustered armies not unlike the Spartan kings as commanders of their full armies, and they had to still ultimately answer to the ephors over many issues. Themistocles' escort was the 300 'picked knights' (Herodotus, The Histories, Book 8.124.3) - the same number picked by 'the very best' (??????????) three 'Commanders of the Guard' (hippagretai; ??????????), as Xenophon relates (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Book 4.3). Coincidence? I can't prove it isn't :x

Oh, there's the call! I gotta run...

I'll continue soon.

Everyone, there's a new book out by Nigel Kennell, the author of The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education and Culture in Ancient Sparta, titled Spartans: A New History. I just began glancing at it the other day when I was called away on my radio :x

Food for thought

Thanks, James

[hoplite14gr]

Some clarifications:

Bodyguard (Person) in Greek is SOMATOPHYLAX.
Bodyguard (UNIT) in Greek is SOMATOPHYLAKI.

I have not seen the term in the orginal text in relation to a Spartan king. Only parastatae (those who stand at his side) or syskoinoi (tent companions) are mentioned

The term appears in the Maceconian kingdom (Somatophylakes Basilikoi - Royal bodyguards) and the archaic tyrrants bravos who are also referred as "prostatae" (protectors) or Phrouroi (guards).

Kind regards

[Ghostmojo]

OK a few more Hippeis-based queries for general discussion, since James put us back on to it:

Why was it that Leonidas I felt the need to replace those hebontes that had not yet had sons (from the 300 he took with him to Thermopylai) with older chaps who had? Why did he look to the 300 (Hippeis) in the first place? Why didn't he just take his own personal 100, if indeed he only had 100 personal guards? Why didn't he just select another 300 altogether without there needing to be any mention of the Hippeis? Why is there this mention of this replacing one set of guys for another? Does this not suggest that on this occasion at least (and possibly others as Ariobarzanes implies) it had been decided the Hippeis were to be his guard (as another important civic and honourable function for them)? Subsequently, greater consideration was given to the possibility that these particular guys might not return - and the relevant families really needed to be allowed to continue to flourish. Or is it just that he was selecting another 300 in imitation of the Hippeis because the figure 300 was significant? In any event it all comes back to the apparent need to replace (childless) like with (family men) like. That's the point surely?

If Leonidas was originally intent upon taking the Hippeis themselves with him to Thermopylai because they were the cream of the Spartiate elite (the hyper-elite), as opposed to them (arguably) being his nominal royal bodyguard (or not) in any case, why was he worried about their lack of progeny? Presumably when the Hippeis had fought on other occasions previously - and were to do so again in future (1st Mantinea, Leuktra, elsewhere) - they did so in their usual configuration (the ten youngest age classes - with perhaps only the older 1, 2 or 3 age-groups having yet married). When they appeared at Leuktra and suffered accordingly - had not anybody thought to replace their ranks with Spartiates who already had kids (based upon previous experience) especially as dwindling homoioi manpower had started to become a pertinent issue by then? Wasn't it absolute madness to send these 300 guys into battle knowing their family lines might be wiped out in one fell swoop, given how few Spartiates there were anyway (or did they really think the Thebans would be a walkover)?

Why was it only at Thermopylai that this offspring issue ([size=85:n5zxaywv]both meanings of the word[/size]) was deemed an important consideration (when population figures were not such a problem at that late archaic/early classic period)?

[Paullus Scipio]

Paul B. wrote:

More a suprise that there were so many "others". It gives a glimpse of the life of the polis that was occuring around the Spartiates.

...a very important point to note - the Spartiates/Homioi/full citizens represented a minority, just as the 'Hoplite Class' did in other cities. The difference was that the Spartans were relatively 'land rich'/Helot rich by virtue of conquest compared to other cities, and hence their 'Hoplite Class' did not work their own land, and became full-time soldiers.

Kleroi were regularly bought by this date, which was the heart of the oliganthropy. Mortgaging your kleroi was one of the few ways a Spartiate could raise cash and the rules had been changed by an Ephor whose name escapes me so that you could "give" kleroi to those who were not your children.

...to answer properly would require a discourse on the Spartan system of land tenure - originally and 'officially' the Homioi was allocated a 'kleros' and a certain number of Helots to work it, while ownership of both were retained by the State, so the Homioi was technically a 'life tenant' ( c.f. Mediaeval 'Knight's service').
Since Homioi were unable to enter commerce or anything involving money, land acquisition was the only way a Spartiate could improve his 'wealth' position.
Ways were found around the Laws. Mortgaging land was one way, and failure to pay interest rates could lead to forfeiture, or failure to pay the mortgage and syssition fees lead to dis-enfranchisement. ( see e.g. the eagerness to support King Agis and burn the mortgages, but not re-distribute land). The Ephors, supposedly poor men, were notoriously corrupt and accepted bribes to allocate Kleroi. Marriage alliances too could combine estates. ( 'Dowry Hunting' became a public scandal). Aristotle recognised these weaknesses of the Spartan system, and devised measures in his idealised state to counteract them.At some point, the system broke down, probably at some time after Leuktra. Plutarch tells us an Ephor called Epitadeus, who did not get along with his son, changed the Law, allowing a 'Homioi' to will/give his estate to anyone, and as Plutarch remarks ( Life of Agis) "Men of power and influence at once began to acquire estates without scruple...and speedily the wealth of the state went into the hands of a few men and poverty became the rule". Thus 'fee-entail' became 'fee-simple' - ownership in effect passed from the State to individuals. Note that 'buying' kleroi land was still technically illegal.

On what are you basing this? Clearly the "free" neodamodeis were not subsumed under the title of hypomeiones. It would not suprise me at all if the Spartans had a tortuously intricate system of subdivisions.

I guess that, being 'free' and not of the 'Homioi', would make 'neodamodeis' inferior, i.e. a sub-set of the generic 'Hypomeiones'. However there was an important distinction, which is probably why Xenophon categorises them separately, viz, they were all born Helots, and not 'free', being bound to their 'Kleroi'.
Their 'freedom' consisted of being released from their 'kleroi' and hence the obligation to pay a tithe to their Master. They could now go and settle wherever they pleased ( Thuc V.34 ). This was short-lived and Thucydides tells us they were obliged to settle at Lepreon, on the border of Laconia and Elis as a permanent border garrison. They thus became a sort of 'perioecic' community, but belonging to Sparta, not independent. They were thus different to the average 'hypomeion' or 'perioikoi' .

In addition to 'neodamodeis' for the army, Myron of Priene tells us the Spartans often freed Helots, who were nicknamed 'aphetoi'/released or 'adespotoi'/masterless, for all sorts of functions ( c.f. 'freedmen'/former slaves at Rome), so Paul B. is likely right to suggest complex sub-divisions, as in other cities or at Rome.

[Paullus Scipio]

James wrote:

To add to our detail with the etymology of ????? and ?????? in Xenophon's opening statements of Leuctra, the cavalry who joined battle and were speedily worsted are described as ??????, the same word for the royal bodyguard (hence the retained title of 'Horsemen' for the royal bodyguard). Thus if ????? remained in Book 6.4.14 of the texts of the Hellenica which it was first found, it would read,

"...when Deinon, the polemarch, Sphodrias, one of the king's tent-companions, and Cleonymus, the son of Sphodrias, had been killed, then the horses, 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..."

It is a pity that ( as you say) you did not read earlier posts ( see my post 23 Nov), for in fact there is no need for an emendation, for just as in English we can speak of 'horsemen'/ 'hippeis' and 'Horse'(plural)/hippoi as in a military unit called the "4th Horse" or "8th Light Horse" who can also be referred to as "The Light Horsemen", the Greek can convey the same sense of 'Horse'/hippoi and 'Horsemen'/hippeis as synonyms for the same military unit. Thus the translation should read "...then the Horse(plural: title of military unit), and the so-called aides of the Polemarch, and then the others fell back..."

And how many times must it be said that 'Hippeis' is NOT a synonym for 'Royal Bodyguard' ?? ( see Stephanos' most recent post). Incorrect translation !!!!!!!

when restructuring of the lochoi and morai, etc., took place in some form),

This is a whole other issue. There is no proof/strong evidence that this occurred. It is far more likely, as Lazenby ponted out, that the 'Mora' went back to antiquity, and there never was any "re-organisation" of units.

The above data from Xenophon is all we have to make an estimate that Cleombrotus was positioned on the right wing of his army with his 'friends' and Hippeis (??????) at Leuctra, almost certainly positioned between the first and second morai. John K. Anderson and John Buckler are certain of this, and John F. Lazenby supports its plausibility (Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon, pg. 218; The Theban Hegemony, 371-362 B.C., pg. 63; The Spartan Army, pg. 156).

This point too has also been referred to ( see earlier posts)......

[Paullus Scipio]

Howard/Ghostmojo wrote:

Why was it that Leonidas I felt the need to replace those hebontes that had not yet had sons (from the 300 he took with him to Thermopylai) with older chaps who had? Why did he look to the 300 (Hippeis) in the first place? Why didn't he just take his own personal 100, if indeed he only had 100 personal guards? Why didn't he just select another 300 altogether without there needing to be any mention of the Hippeis? Why is there this mention of this replacing one set of guys for another? Does this not suggest that on this occasion at least (and possibly others as Ariobarzanes implies) it had been decided the Hippeis were to be his guard (as another important civic and honourable function for them)? Subsequently, greater consideration was given to the possibility that these particular guys might not return - and the relevant families really needed to be allowed to continue to flourish. Or is it just that he was selecting another 300 in imitation of the Hippeis because the figure 300 was significant? In any event it all comes back to the apparent need to replace (childless) like with (family men) like. That's the point surely?

...this has already been discussed There was never any question of 'replacement'.Herodotus simply says;
"The three hundred whom he brought on this occasion to Thermopylae were chosen by himself, all fathers of living sons"....
He didn't take the Hippeis ( chosen by the Hippagretae), or 'replace' anyone, but simply selected 300 men with living sons - none of whom could have been under 30, hence not Hippeis ( assuming the story is not simply Legendary Hindsight)
Paul M wrote:

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

...and elsewhere. IF ( and it's a big if) the story is not an apochryphal part of the Legend, then by definition ALL the 'hebontes'/under thirty are excluded by definition, since only men over 30 could legally marry and have legitimate off-spring.
The number "300" for specially dangerous tasks, which occurs many times, has been attractively explained by Lazenby, also referred to ante....
Paul M wrote:

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’

Leonidas' force was most likely one of these 'Task Forces' of 300 we hear about, one enomotia from each of the Lochoi.....

Howard/Ghostmojo wrote:

When they appeared at Leuktra and suffered accordingly - had not anybody thought to replace their ranks with Spartiates who already had kids (based upon previous experience) especially as dwindling homoioi manpower had started to become a pertinent issue by then? Wasn't it absolute madness to send these 300 guys into battle knowing their family lines might be wiped out in one fell swoop, given how few Spartiates there were anyway (or did they really think the Thebans would be a walkover)?

Why was it only at Thermopylai that this offspring issue (both meanings of the word) was deemed an important consideration (when population figures were not such a problem at that late archaic/early classic period)?

...I think you have answered your own question. The whole 'fathers only' thing is likely to be Legend.
Even if it did occur (uniquely) at Thermopylae, there was no reason to repeat it ( nor, arguably, did dwindling numbers allow such a luxury - every Homioi was needed) for the Spartans were marching to 'just another battle' which they fully expected to win.

[Paullus Scipio]

Some clarifications:

Bodyguard (Person) in Greek is SOMATOPHYLAX.
Bodyguard (UNIT) in Greek is SOMATOPHYLAKI.

I have not seen the term in the orginal text in relation to a Spartan king. Only parastatae (those who stand at his side) or syskoinoi (tent companions) are mentioned

The term appears in the Maceconian kingdom (Somatophylakes Basilikoi - Royal bodyguards) and the archaic tyrrants bravos who are also referred as "prostatae" (protectors) or Phrouroi (guards).

Kind regards

Excellent point! .......I would agree entirely that the absence of these common terms for 'Bodyguard' in ALL our sources for this period is highly significant..