Hippeis, not Hippies

[Spartan JKM]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Speaking of powers of deductive reasoning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

...The case is usually made indirectly. We know that the Spartan Kings did have a royal guard of some sort (100 "select men" according to Herodotus 5.56, who may be speaking of the early fifth century...

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

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

Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, Book 15.32.1,

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

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

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



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

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

Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 5.4.52-53,

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

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

What is the evidence that the Spartan Hippeis functioned as a Royal Guard as opposed to an elite unit that often fought in the vicinity of the King along the battle line?...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strabo, Geographica, Book 10.4.18,

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

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

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

Hellenica, Book 3.3.8-9,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herodotus wrote, The Histories, Book 1.67.5,

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

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

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

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

OK. What did I accomplish? Probably more perturbation!

Food for thought.

Thanks, James K MacKinnon