Hippeis, not Hippies

[PMBardunias]

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!

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.