Hippeis, not Hippies

[PMBardunias]

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?

[hoplite14gr]

They fanctioned as elite dignitary escort as in case of Themistokles when he visited Sparta and if memory serves me right, Cimon too.

Kind regsrds

[Ariobarzanes]

There isn't really any direct evidence that they served as a royal guard.

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; a guard of the "most renowned" according to Isocrates Philip 1.6; and Dionysius much later on, I think, actually says "300 of the best" or something like that), and when we see the Hippeis in action they tend to be fighting around the king, so it's usual to assume that the hippeis in whole or in part constituted the guard.

[Ghostmojo]

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?

Doesn't the one comment rather support the other - they were a selected 'elite' who fought around the king (i.e. also accompanying him to Thermopylai (regardless as to whether they were proper Hippeis or not) and Leuktra) - there to fight and protect (bodyguard) the king (royal)? Stephen Hodkinson and Paul Cartledge both refer to them as the Royal Bodyguard and A. Andrews as King's Bodyguard. Thoukydides (Thucydides) also said as much.

I know I have discussed this before, but I believe they were definitely a Royal Guard when required. I say this because the Hippeis were originally cavalrymen (knights) drawn from the Spartan aristocracy (i.e the king's peer group) for a specific purpose - given that all Spartan adult males were warriors anyway. That purpose was included being a 'bodyguard' - and indeed on occasion an 'honour guard' (as Stefanos indicates). The figure of 300 is quite common in ancient Greek armies - Elis, Thebes, Athens and others had special units amounting to that figure (possibly inspired by the Spartan original?). I think, although I cannot prove it, that the 300 = 3 x 100 from each of the three Dorian subtribes. Xenophon tells us the Ephors selected three Hippagretai to each select 100 of the best men.

... 100 "select men" according to Herodotus 5.56, who may be speaking of the early fifth century ...

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.

[hoplite14gr]

There seems to be a diffculry maintaining a large unit of Heavy infantry in the Archaic period.

300 seem to be within the means of every city state. Arcaic Mycunae seem to have only 80.

5000 elite hoplites in Argos were an aberation when Pheidon forced the aristokrats to foot the bill

5000 eparitoi in Arkadia were the eliteo of the whole Arkadian Koinon (comonwealth).
Some "Koina" were poor like the Phokians who fileded only 500


The 300 Spartan hippeis were mostly "tradition keepers"
The 5000 Homioi were probably a way to counter Pheidons epilektoi after the brutal lesson of Hyssiai 670 B.C.

Kind regards

[Ghostmojo]

I have often wondered, however, if the figure of 300 was literal or approximate. Certainly it would be 301 with the king in the centre of them all (not 299+king = 300 as Victor Davis Hanson would have it), but various authors refer to the Hippagretai as being leaders/commanders as well as selectors; and perhaps they were in the ranks in addition? I know some authors say that the Hippagretai were each a part of their respective hundred but I think they were clearly in addition to (each having to select 100 not including themselves). The figure of 304 is also actually quite subdivisable (8x38/16x19).

[PMBardunias]

Doesn't the one comment rather support the other - they were a selected 'elite' who fought around the king (i.e. also accompanying him to Thermopylai (regardless as to whether they were proper Hippeis or not) and Leuktra) - there to fight and protect (bodyguard) the king (royal)?

There is a big difference between an elite unit that would fight in the place of honor along the battle line and a unit dedicated to act as a life-guard for one of the kings.

I know I have discussed this before, but I believe they were definitely a Royal Guard when required. I say this because the Hippeis were originally cavalrymen (knights) drawn from the Spartan aristocracy (i.e the king's peer group) for a specific purpose - given that all Spartan adult males were warriors anyway.

Hippeis in Crete were still horsemen in classical times and not a king's guard.

[hoplite14gr]

Only in Sparta Hippeis were some "creme de la creme" unit.
As Paul says in other cities Hippeis meant social class able to provide cavalry.

The "royal guard"as understood today coresponded more to the tyrrants bodyguards or to Macedonia.

City states never relinquish control of the elite unit entirely to one person. Pelopidas is a notable exception.

So in my opinion the 300 hippeis were a unit at the disposal of King in case of emergency.

The king had two parastatae in Battle who preformed the role of actual bodygyards.

Agesilaos unit of 80 was also an aberaration.

Kind regards

[Ghostmojo]

Doesn't the one comment rather support the other - they were a selected 'elite' who fought around the king (i.e. also accompanying him to Thermopylai (regardless as to whether they were proper Hippeis or not) and Leuktra) - there to fight and protect (bodyguard) the king (royal)?

There is a big difference between an elite unit that would fight in the place of honor along the battle line and a unit dedicated to act as a life-guard for one of the kings.

Indeed there is, however, there is also a semantic argument going on here. In later history certain units were definitely created as bodyguard units - from Praetorians to Napoleon to Hitler and so on (although obviously there was also an honourable aspect to this). I haven't used the term Life Guard as such. As they didn't do much swimming (sic) nor (more seriously) was an urban threatening proletariat in the streets - the kings didn't obviously need/require a permanent armed guard within their own city (they lived in houses rather than palaces for example). Also considering the fates of Kleomenes I, Pausanias (OK a Regent), Agis IV and others - it is clear the state didn't sanction a full time protective force of any size within the city. However, on campaign - given everything we know about the personage of the kings - besides his two immediate champions - he was clearly important enough as the front-line fighting commander to require a unit for his protection. We only have to remember the fighting that took place at Thermopylai and Leuktra to recover the fallen king's body to appreciate the importance of his role and his being. Therefore, I offer the suggestion that this bodyguard role swung into effect when hostilities commenced and the army marched. In peacetime (or what passed for pax Spartana) they would be held as a nominal reserve. We do not actually know for certain whether the hippeis existed for a set period (up to 30) - or for life - or whether the call-up/selection by the Hippagretai was at prescribed times or when general mobilisation occured. Nor do we know for sure whether they held the role for selecting replacements for fallen unit members, if the unit was a permanently standing affair (as it might have been if we can accept they were also involved in Krypteia operations against Helots). I think enough references exist from ancient commentators - as well as learned modern scholars to accept their role as a royal bodyguard on campaign and certainly on the battlefield. There were obviously positions of honour on the battlefield - one of which traditionally was afforded the Skiritai (for as long as they existed as a Lakedaimonian unit).

I know I have discussed this before, but I believe they were definitely a Royal Guard when required. I say this because the Hippeis were originally cavalrymen (knights) drawn from the Spartan aristocracy (i.e the king's peer group) for a specific purpose - given that all Spartan adult males were warriors anyway.

Hippeis in Crete were still horsemen in classical times and not a king's guard.

Yes I know that. The Kretans also fell foul of disunity of competing (often piratical) city-states much like the mainland. It was also a rank of status within Athenian society. Hippeis may well have been the Greek term for cavalry but at Sparta the term had developed into something more specific - a term (rather than accurate description) denoting origins (think of grenadiers in late C18th/C19th) and status, rather than actual employment; although given the Spartans love of hunting and horses in general perhaps they were still supposed to be decent equestrians (although I recognise the problem with that theory given the dire state of Spartan cavalry)? We clearly have to disassociate the actual nomenclature from the reality of the constitution of the unit itself. I think we also have to remember the nature of the social status of the hippeis at Sparta. They were (initially at least and presumably throughout the classical period) drawn from the full Spartiate ranks and from the aristocratic class at that. They were in a very real sense the kings' peer group. There may well be (although Herodotos is not clear about this) a direct correlation with the 300 picked men who fought at the Battle of the Champions (although the nature of that conflict suggests the king was not present) in 545 BC - given they were supposed to be the best of the best. Did the hippeis exist at this time? Did they surround both kings in battle when both kings actually fought (prior to Kleomenes I/Damaratos)? Were they created or more formally instituted as a guard once the decision had been made to restrict the royal prerogative to only one dyarch in the field at any given time? In any event, at some point they ceased being cavalrymen and became heavily armed hoplites - that much is certain.

Only in Sparta Hippeis were some "creme de la creme" unit. As Paul says in other cities Hippeis meant social class able to provide cavalry. City states never relinquish control of the elite unit entirely to one person. Pelopidas is a notable exception. So in my opinion the 300 hippeis were a unit at the disposal of King in case of emergency

I'd go along with much of that, although I reiterate I believe in the case of the Spartan Hippeis, the role although formal, was principly prescribed to campaigning and not dyarchical civic duties - and in case of a king's departure from the city he would choose to have the Hippeis accompany him - perhaps rather than the state formally relinquish them to him (although the two things may well be deeply entwined). Here we remember Leonidas I reselecting his guard as non-bachelors. Whether it was an appreciative Spartan state or the king/s in person who afforded Themistokles the honour of the Hippeis as his personal escort across Lakonia (or who gave him his fine chariot) - I really cannot say - but that would suggest the possibility of some (special occasion) civic duties too. This subject also enfringes upon the discussion as to whether Sparta was really a thoroughly militaristic society, or just created that famous mirage of being one.

[hoplite14gr]

The real Sparta is not the image that Xenophon or Plutarch gave to us.
Archaological evidence shows art culture and trade up to 500 B.C. - hardly a closed society.
The ephors were not in the "Retra" and appear after 670 B.C. (After the defeat in Hysiai - interesting )

That implies that the Kings had more power than originaly thought up to a point at least.
The Ephors seem to dominate everything after the 3rd Messenian war.

The kings were attempting to curb the Ephors.

Is interesting to speculate that Kleomenens multiple wounds were the result of torture and Pausaninas story is the "official version" - aproved by the Ephors perhaps

Peisistatos did coup d' etat with 50 clubmen I trus that given the chance 300 hoplites could do it easier

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

Hippeis may well have been the Greek term for cavalry but at Sparta the term had developed into something more specific

Undeniable. But I think you miss the point Stephanos and I have both been making. 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. Grenadiers spring from units of semi-suicidal men who took up the most dangerous tasks during sieges and were treated as elites because of it. Other units are raised specifically as guards whose prime focus lay with their royal patron.

The Spartan Hippeis surely originated as the first type, from horse owners, then lost their horses, but retained their status as elites. The question is whether they would ever have seen themselves as the last.

Also, we must be careful with placing too much emphasis on the number 300. The one time we see 300 specifically tied to the King's life, or loss theireof, they are not the Hippeis. The 300 at the battle of champions may not have been either as you noted. And the number may not be so rare even outside of Greece, Gideon fought the Midionites with 300 elite men.

Kings often took very few men with them, and we are told as noted above that 100 was the number on one occaision. IN assuming the 300 hippeis performed this function are we obscuring a 100 man unit? Were I a Spartan king, with what I know of Spartan politics, my guard would be the members of my Phiditia and a core group most loyal to me, with a sprinkling of olympic winners now and then.

[john m roberts]

But did they have Hippies?

[PMBardunias]

But did they have Hippies?

Well, they had dudes with long oily hair and beards, that loved to chant and dance while celebrating the Hyacinthia. That smacks of Flower-Power to me!

[Paralus]

If you're going to La-ko-nia
Be sure to wear more'n olive oil in your hair
If you're going to La -ko-nia
You're gonna meet some fearsome people there

For those who come to La-konia
Summertime’s campaigning season there
In the streets of La-ko-nia
Fearsome people with olive oil in their hair

Across the whole Spartan nation mustering in formation
Mora in motion
There's a lot of frustration with the Boeotion Federation
Mora in motion Mora in motion

For those who come to La-ko-nia
Be sure they’ll wear olive oil in their hair
If you come to La-konia
Summertime’s campaigning season there

If you come to La-ko-nia
Summertime’s campaigning season there

[Ghostmojo]

Very funny Mike Now turn your hand to Achilles Last Stand!

Or:

Dancing (Ground Of Ares) Days
(Gytheion) Down By The Seaside
Hot(Gate)s On For Nowhere
(Brazen) Houses Of The Holy
(Dorian) Immigrant Song
Misty (Taygetos) Mountain Hop
(Fallen Persians) Trampled Under Foot
Travellin' (Eurotas) Riverside Blues



Or to quote Douglas Adams - "Solon and thanks for all the fish" ...

[Paralus]

My sort of music Howard, my sort of music. Days of hair long and with colour. Days of hair - period!

I'm not necessarily certain the Spartans will have marched to war to Led Zeppelin. Then again...

Stairway to Olympus
Boogie With Melas Zomas

Of course, No Quarter will have been the anthem; the helots were well acqauinted with The Battle of Evermore and Dazed and Confused the soundtrack to Leuktra.

I must write Going to Plataea:

Goin' to Plataea with seven helots at my back
Someone told me there's a barbaroi out there...

[Ghostmojo]

Hippeis may well have been the Greek term for cavalry but at Sparta the term had developed into something more specific

Undeniable. But I think you miss the point Stephanos and I have both been making. 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. Grenadiers spring from units of semi-suicidal men who took up the most dangerous tasks during sieges and were treated as elites because of it. Other units are raised specifically as guards whose prime focus lay with their royal patron.

No, I don't think so Paul. I don't even necessarily disagree with you or Stefanos in general. I just put a distinct emphasis on the role of this unit as perhaps being more specific. Even if it were not carved in stone (or written on papyrus) by the Spartans (sadly not leaving us notes to compare) or anybody else for that matter, that the Hippeis were a Royal Bodyguard - I think it is clear that they were one de facto. Think of three important conflicts when we hear of them - with the king - at Thermopylai 480 BC; at 1st Mantinea 418 BC; at Leuktra 371 BC. They are specifically surrounding and fighting with their king - with Leonidas I; with Agis II; with Kleombrotos I. The fact that a Spartan king was not unique (a spare at home) and that he was not autocratic and absolute like later monarchs who had such guards, doesn't mean he was ill-deserving of one. There is a clear paradox at work here which is difficult to resolve. A Spartan king could have his own troops criticise him - yelling at him from the ranks; or even have a sub-commander disobey him (Plataia (the Regent being much the same role)); and even be recalled and humiliated for any lack of performance - but still be honoured and revered as a direct descendant of the gods. My point about the Grenadiers is that the name survived (and still does) long after the specific role was dispensed with.

The Spartan Hippeis surely originated as the first type, from horse owners, then lost their horses, but retained their status as elites. The question is whether they would ever have seen themselves as the last.

I don't disagree with any of that, but ultimately it really doesn't matter. The 300 Knights were clearly originally (and perhaps continuously) from aristocratic backgrounds. The point is not so much they could afford horses or supply them or whatever - it is that their original role was lost but the name survived. They certainly saw themselves as an elite. Those not lucky enough to be selected either took the philosophical view that they were happy the city had 300 men better than themselves - or - they considered themselves at war with the hippagretai for overlooking them in favour of those who were selected.

Also, we must be careful with placing too much emphasis on the number 300. The one time we see 300 specifically tied to the King's life, or loss theireof, they are not the Hippeis. The 300 at the battle of champions may not have been either as you noted. And the number may not be so rare even outside of Greece, Gideon fought the Midionites with 300 elite men.

Well, as I say I have some views on the numbers myself, but we do hear of them at Leuktra (also with a dying king) as well as Thermopylai, and as for the latter I am not convinced that the fact that Leonidas replaced the younger men with older ones (who had sons) means this second group were not still the Hippeis. After all, some of these men who had perhaps produced progeny might still have been under 30. We know men without sons were replaced, but that does not mean every single one of the original 300 in August 480 BC was replaced by another man.

Kings often took very few men with them, and we are told as noted above that 100 was the number on one occaision. IN assuming the 300 hippeis performed this function are we obscuring a 100 man unit? Were I a Spartan king, with what I know of Spartan politics, my guard would be the members of my Phiditia and a core group most loyal to me, with a sprinkling of olympic winners now and then.

As I have said many times, I think the 300 were 100 x 3. The tripartite nature of Spartan numerology cannot be underestimated. The Gerousia had 30 permanent sitting members and I suspect these senators were drawn 10 from each Dorian sub-tribe. That would be 10 from the Dymanes - 10 from the Pamphyloi - and 8 plus the 2 kings from the Hylleis. The fact that the kings belonged to a royal phiditia rather than a regular homoioi one, does not mean that they necessarily chose their battle companions from that group, although they may well have been incorporated (politically) by the hippagretai in their selection process. It is therefore entirely conceivable that the 300 Hippeis were formed of three 100 man companies from each of those Dorian sub-tribes. There is a significance to the H, D & P sub-tribes/clans which I seem to be somewhat alone in recognising here. And also surely the highest honour that any soldier might anticipate, is to be picked to fight alongside and protect his king? I suppose finally, that the royal bodyguard might well have been composed of 300 Hippeis plus whomever else the king chose to have along that day. We hear of the Hippagretai as the selectors of the 300 - but these 3 individuals may well have doubled up as the 3 Polemarchs for the Hippeis - each one leading his own 100 men - the Ephors perhaps having specifically selected 1 hippagretes from each clan. They may well have been amongst his mess companions on campaign, alongside the Olympic victors et al.

[Paralus]

As I have said many times, I think the 300 were 100 x 3. The tripartite nature of Spartan numerology cannot be underestimated. The Gerousia had 30 permanent sitting members and I suspect these senators were drawn 10 from each Dorian sub-tribe. That would be 10 from the Dymanes - 10 from the Pamphyloi - and 8 plus the 2 kings from the Hylleis.

Quite. Xenophon, Hellenica 3.4.2:

Now while the Lacedaemonians were in a state of great excitement, and were gathering together their allies and taking counsel as to what they should do, Lysander, thinking that the Greeks would be far superior on the sea, and reflecting that the land force which went up country with Cyrus had returned safely, persuaded Agesilaus to promise, in case the Lacedaemonians would give him thirty Spartiatae, two thousand emancipated Helots, and a contingent of six thousand of the allies, to make an expedition to Asia.

Now, aside form the Lacedaemonians running about in a state excitement (for which read near panic) about an expedition almost certainly aimed at Egypt, the number is interesting: thirty rather than twenty or fifty.

[Spartan JKM]

Great discussion, guys . But I'm afraid all we ('we', now that I'll enthusiastically join in!) can do is not only confirm the frustrating, yet often tantalizingly so, lack of evidence, but the incompatible nature of the literature we do have - and in this case it comes from the major sources we know so well. We simply cannot be certain about the basics of the Spartan army's infrastructure before Xenophon's descriptions, aided by a snippet here and there from Diodorus and Plutarch, etc. I do agree about the issue of nomenclature - it does not carry a set meaning, and many terms can often be inter-changeable throughout the Greco-Roman historiographic tradition (mainly with weaponry and military units). Moreover, I agree that the Spartan royal bodyguards were originally mounted; Sparta may not have been a cavalry power, but the nobility of just about any state would ride on horses when moving around; it was always emblematic of the privileged, etc. After all, Herodotus and Thucydides do mention the '300 Knights'. Generally speaking, hippeis (singular, hippeus - ἱππεύς), is the Greek term for cavalry (as well as a term for one of the wealthier classes of a Greek polis, eg, the 'knights' being the second highest social class in Athens behind the pentekosiomedimnoi, the citizens who 'possessed land which produced'; cf. Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 3.16.1, Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, Ch. 7.4), similar in meaning and social status to the Roman equites (singular, eques) of the Equestrian Order (Ordo Equester). A general Latin meaning of any person mounted on a horse was equus, but in the context of 'cavalrymen' it carried a specific meaning of 'knight'. By the turn of the 5th/4th century B.C., the Spartan Hippeus, despite the remaining title, was a member of the Royal Bodyguard (cf. Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 6.4.14), and had nothing to do with hippeis in the sense of cavalrymen, or even men on horses. By contrast, the Macedonian hypaspistai and hetairoi were distinguished as elite infantry and cavalry under the reforms of Philip II and Alexander III of Macedon (a wider application in nomenclature and quantity was primarily Alexander's role in what his father bequeathed him: 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 ). 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 (οὐτόπος) 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 εὖτόπος, 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 dēmokratía. 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 ἱππέες.

...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 δορυφὁροι 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 ); 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 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 ἱππέες (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 ἱππῆς.

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 ἱππέων); 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 (ἀγαθοεργοὶ; 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 ἱππεῖς.

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 ἱππαγρέται - 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 (ἀγαθοεργοὶ). 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 sēmantikós 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?

OK. What did I accomplish? Probably more perturbation!

Food for thought.

Thanks, James K MacKinnon

[Ghostmojo]

An excellent response James which has added much to this interesting debate . Thanks also for your kind remarks . There is much to consider in your comments to which I will return at some point. I should add that like you I managed to get a library copy of Lazenby's book many years ago and also photocopied it. The contents are totally absorbing of course, and his analysis pivotal to understanding the way the Spartan army changed, evolved, and crucially dealt with the manpower issues. His own views ultimately are at odds with some prevailing wisdoms regarding the actual numbers available to later Spartan armies. As I remember he is inclined to double the figures that many subscribe to. My only problem is that I can't find my own copy just at present - but I will ...

New York City BTW - is one of my favourite places. I was working there in the late 1990s by Madison Square Park, near where Broadway crosses 5th (in fact just a block or two down from the Flat Iron Building). I enjoyed my stint there, and previous and subsequent trips (the last time being 2005 when I came out to see the reunited Cream play at Madison Square Garden). So with Sparta and the Big Apple - we have two things in common ...