Hippeis, not Hippies

[PMBardunias]

A few points that need to be cleared up:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?