Hippeis, not Hippies

[Ghostmojo]

What is interesting also, is the opinions of modern historians. I was wondering what various posters here think of what they have read from well informed current authors? I have mentioned Cartledge before, but am currently reading the new book from Nigel M. Kennell - Spartans A New History ([size=85:3aut2kuz]Wiley-Blackwell[/size]). In case you don't know of him, he is an Instructor at the International Centre for Hellenic & Mediterranean Studies at Athens. He is also a member of the American School at Athens, but is perhaps better known as the author of The Gymnasium of Virtue (1995).

He makes great play of recent archaeological discoveries in his fact-finding and also clearly is writing for an educated - but not necessarily scholarly - audience. He has interesting things to say on the Hippeis from what I have picked out so far.

Talking about hebontes he says: "these young men were also eligible for distinction as members of the 300-strong crack unit called the hippeis or 'knights', who actually fought as hoplites, not horseback." Nothing contentious there. He continues: "Their most prestigious duty was to act as bodyguards for each king while he was on campaign, with the task usually assigned to one third of their number (Hdt 6.56)." Once again one of these modern historian guys has gone and done it again!!! (although specifying/clarifying the 100-strong sub-group)...

Furthermore he elaborates: "While the rest of the hebontes were brigaded throughout the lochoi, the Hippeis had the extraordinary privilege of forming a separate corps outside the military chain of command". Well, fair enough I think we'd go along with that (except perhaps his emphasis about the chain of command bit - I would have inserted 'usual' or 'regular' there perhaps), adding: "The Hippeis also acted as the domestic security service as in the Cinadon crisis (Xen. Hell. 3.3.9)". OK, we know they were a Spartan MI5 (rather than MI6) as we have covered this ground trodden by Kinadon before. He then explains: "The Hippeis' loyalty and discretion in carrying out such sensitive assignments was due to their special status in the Spartan military heirarchy. On campaign the Hippeis and Hippagretai answered directly to the kings, at home to the ephors". I can see much merit in that comment. A sort of split allegiance somehow fits the balance of power between kings and ephors.

Elsewhere when elaborating upon the powers of the Ephorate he also states: "..."From amongst the eldest hebontes they also designated the three hippagretai, who chose 300 hebontes to serve as the 'cavalrymen' (hippeis), the crack royal bodyguard (Xen. Lac. 4.3). The Hippeis also seem to have constituted a special strike force at the ephors' direct disposal... And then he mentions the singular tribute paid to one of Athens' finest: "Themistocles was given the unique honor of being escorted to the Arcadian border by the crack ([size=85:3aut2kuz]a word he likes[/size]) three hundred 'knights' (hippeis), who normally accompanied only the kings to battle (Hdt. 8.124) - perhaps a temporary and symbolic elevation to royal status." Now he is definitely going out on a limb there, but he might be right.

He of course mentions Mantinea and Leuktra with further references to royal bodyguard still intact in his thinking, finally mentioning (in relation to the powers and privileges of the kings): "In battle the king usually (but not always) fought on the right wing, in the place of honor usually reserved for commanders, and in the company of an elite guard of 100 men picked from the 300-strong crack ([size=85:3aut2kuz]there it is again[/size]) corps of hippeis (knights)..."

More fuel to fan the flames ...