development of Spartan Auxiliaries

[Marcvs75]

The Spartan army is well known of its crack hoplites. But what about its archers, javelineers, horsemen, peltast, slingers etc.....??

If i am not mistaken Spartan army was a whole hoplite army with an unknown number of helots fighting as psiloi. They converted the Sciritai to lighter armed infantry. And during the war with Athens they began more and more to use lighter armed troops. Off course they despised men who fought cowardly like archers, but at least at some point they saw the advantages of other troop-types

Does anyone has an overview of the development of Spartan troop types other than hoplites ?

regards

[hoplite14gr]

Cavalry service was frowned upon in Sparta so this branch developed slowly and was ineficient. Mercenaries provided substitutes but they appear after 4th century B.C. Agesilaos had mercenary goof quality horsemen.

Archers again were mostly mercenaries-usually Cretans.

Skiritan hoplites permored peltast duty and were eficient.
Though elemets of the "agoge" tought the youths fieldcraft and survival skills so each Spartan hoplite could perform light infantry task if was ordered to and issued with proper equipment.

Funny thing is that the Hellenistic Spartan army was mostly composed of mercenary peltasts and archers.

Kind regards

[Paullus Scipio]

I'm afraid Stefanos' answer is too simplistic, based on Sekunda’s rather inaccurate Osprey ’Spartan Army’ and may give a false impression. It needs to be expanded and clarified......

Cavalry service was frowned upon in Sparta so this branch developed slowly and was ineficient.

We do not hear of any Spartan cavalry at all until the Peloponnesian war.(Herodotus simply doesn't mention any and Thucydides says that when cavalry were raised in 424 BC, this was "unprecedented" - this was roughly around the same time as other Greek poleis, so not "frowned upon" - indeed Sparta was generally foremost in military innovation). In Xenophon's day, they consisted of six morai of probably 100-120 troopers. The horses were excellent - Sparta had many rich fanciers who bred horses for racing and chariot racing, and who were fairly successful at Olympics etc. Xenophon, a cavalryman himself, and describing the cavalry defeat at Leuktra (371 BC), points out that the Spartan cavalry were at their "very worst just at that time" - he criticised the troopers as "raw recruits", "the least strong" and "lacking soldierly ambition", (Xen Hell.6.4) but the force definitely included Homioi(Xen Hell.5.4), so quality may be a relative thing here. The fact that troopers only met their horses at call-up would be a disadvantage. Not surprising then, that the more experienced and more numerous Boeotian Cavalry beat them on this occasion. We should not judge the skills of Spartan Cavalry from one defeat when they were at their "very worst".

If the cavalry did not enjoy the 'aristocratic' status it held elsewhere, it was not really part of the Spartan Army's 'main battle force', but was used for tasks such as scouting, carrying messages, skirmishing etc. At these tasks, it seems to have been no worse than any other greek cavalry - hardly "inefficient".

After Xenophon, we hear almost nothing at all about the Spartan Army for a century.

The next description of the Spartan Army is for the Sellasia campaign ( see current issue of Ancient Warfare magazine), where the Spartans form a Macedonian Pike Phalanx, and the army includes cavalry described as 'Tarentine', a term which had come to mean a type of shielded javelin armed light cavalry rather than mercenaries from Taras. We simply don't know if the 'Tarentine' cavalry in the Hellenistic Spartan Army at Sellasia (222 BC) and Mantinea ( 207 BC) were Spartan or mercenary - possibly both, though mercenaries were perhaps more likely.

Archers again were mostly mercenaries-usually Cretans.

The Spartan Army, as such, never included archers at any time.

Non-Spartan 'auxiliaries' - mercenaries(lit; mistophoroi ='wage earners') as opposed to Allies - are first used by Sparta when a force is required to serve 'abroad' under Brasidas in Macedonia and Thrace. This force was intended to attack Athenian influence there and consisted of 700 freed Helots and 1,000 Peloponnesian mercenaries, all Hoplites, and since Sparta couldn't afford them, were paid for by Perdiccas, King of Makedonia.
After Sphacteria and other incidents had taught the greeks that light troops could be useful, both sides in the Peloponnesian war began to hire mercenary Thracian peltasts [lit; pelte(a light shield) carriers], who skirmished with javelins. The only archers we hear of at this time are a few Iberians, employed by Athens.

The “Ten Thousandâ€

[Marcvs75]

Thanks for the overview Paullus.

Didn't Brasidas also had a force of 500 Thracians, 300 peltast and 200 horsemen ?

I did not know that the Spartans bred horses. It is a pity they did not raise a profesonal cavalry unit. But the cavalry at the time did not use shock tactics (until the Macedonians) and were, apart from the Thessilians and Boeotians very amaturistic. With other words the cavalry couldn't do much against a phalanx.

When you add up all the forces of Agesilaus, it is quite a stong army. The Greek cavalry and infantry raised by Agesilaus in Asia Minor performed surprisingly good

[hoplite14gr]

Paul agrree with what you said about Celomenes and Machanidas.
But king Areus though fought Pyrros mainly with Cretan mercenaries archers and javlineers. Plutarch also said that Spartans made could use of their missiles against Pyrrus men while defending their city.

Ancient Greek horses were not used as labor animals. they were bred for wat or racing. After 600 B.C. the phalanax started making the use of cavalry not a good idea. So aristokrats of most Greek cities reduced the number of horses they possesed using them only in Horse races or travel. Possibly for messengers. If a couple of men used horses for scouting or shadowing the enemy they cannot be classed as cavalry. Thessalians were the only exception.
Yes agree that Cavalry "reappeared" in the late 5th century or rather horsemen became more active.

Brasidas might have hired or got allies to figt as light troops. Remember-a Myrkininan allied or hired peltast killed Cleon.

Kind regards

[PMBardunias]

But king Areus though fought Pyrros mainly with Cretan mercenaries archers and javlineers. Plutarch also said that Spartans made could use of their missiles against Pyrrus men while defending their city.

Areus' army was primarily Spartan hoplites who had returned from Crete, not cretan mercenaries. We are told that few able fighting men were in sparta at the time and that Areus went to aid the Gortynians, so it stands to reason that he took the men with him.

We are told that Pyrros' horse was shot out from under him by a "Cretan" arrow, which I assume came afrom a cretan mercenary, so there probably were some Cretan archers there. Given the close ties between Laconia and Crete this is not unlikely. That said it is clear that the major fighting, even in the absence of Areus, was hand to hand over the ditch and at the wagons with Acrotatus.

[Paralus]

Plutarch also said that Spartans made could use of their missiles against Pyrrus men while defending their city.

"Missiles" hurled from rooftops. Pyrrhus was killed by a roof tile if memory serves. I'd think we'd be stretching to rely on that - given that it seems that it was the roof they were "slinging" - as evidence of "slingers" or such. Then again, that may have been Argos...

The action at Sparta is a strictly defensive one. The Spartans construct a trench and bury wagons - a stockade almost from memory. It appears that the women brought up not only food and drink but also "missiles". We might likely read javelins to be hurled at advancing infantry from the stockade or defensive position. Plutarch is clear though when describibg the spartans in action: they are in files and they are "many shields". They are hoplites.

Paullus will vehemently disagree - nicely enough - but far too much is made of aspis in the name hypaspist. Indeed there is almost a an adolescent's fixation on size (er..of the shield) in this debate. I often wonder why there is no debate on foot size when these hypapspists were pezos-hetairoi for surely it was their feet that defined them?

Towards the end of Philip's reign - if not at the beginning of Alexander's - the king's foot guard - the pezhetairoi - took the titilature "hypaspists of the Companions". This then differentiated them from their former title, pezhetairoi which from then on applied to the heavy infantry, aside from the aesthetairoi, as a group. These units were the kings' guard and the royal hypaspists - the agema of the hypaspists - were literally the king's shield bearers. A job aptly performed by the royal hypaspists around Alexander in the Malli town including Peucestas.

Diodorus (17.98.5), when relating this incident, interestingly notes the following:

The Macedonians were still busy fighting along the wall. Alexander seized a ladder, leaned it against the walls of the citadel, and clambered up holding a light shield above his head. So quick was he to act that he reached the top of the wall before the defenders could forestall him.

Alexander is on foot and is without any doubt, as the narrative goes on to show, surrounded by his hypaspists. He ascends the wall under his "light" shield - the Greek being pelte (as at 99.3). It is unlikely, one might think, that he has decided to ascend the wall under a different shield to that used by his hypaspists. Why would the king decline a hoplite's aspis in favour of a pelte? Becuase it is likely that is what was being carried by them here. Aside from Peucestas who was bearing the king's ceremonial shield.

There is good evidence that it was the aesthetairoi who in fact were Philip's and Alexander's regularly hoplite armed troops - a proposition well argued by EM Anson. The hypaspists were a unit that went well back into Philip's reign and were cross trained in all manner of armament. A fact exemplified by their actions over the course of Alexander's campaigns and afterward.

Many epigoni were armed and trained in the Macedonian manner and were much sought after in the wars following Alexander's death. These troops provided invaluable service to the Diadochoi and could hold the filed against any infantry. Paraetecene and Gabiene demonstrate that they'd much to learn from Philip's and Alexander's veterans though.

[PMBardunias]

I often wonder why there is no debate on foot size when these hypapspists were pezos-hetairoi for surely it was their feet that defined them?

So then you are saying that just as Hypaspists carried something other than the eponymous Aspis, Pezos-hetairoi walked on something other than feet?

[Paullus Scipio]

Oi, you lot ! :x ......can we stick to the topic of Spartans, and not digress into Makedonians..........
Having said which...
Paralus wrote:-

Paullus will vehemently disagree - nicely enough - but far too much is made of aspis in the name hypaspist. Indeed there is almost a an adolescent's fixation on size (er..of the shield) in this debate.

...the point here, and why shield size/type has some importance ( as opposed to say, foot-size! :wink: ) is because this factor determines the weapons array of the soldier - an Aspis-carrier must of necessity carry a dory and cannot wield a sarissa....

There is good evidence that it was the aesthetairoi who in fact were Philip's and Alexander's regularly hoplite armed troops - a proposition well argued by EM Anson.

Now here I would "vehemently disagree" :lol: :lol: ....but I repeat, if this fascinating subject, with fragmentary evidence for both points of view, is to be re-visited, it should be by re-opening the Hypaspist thread, not here........
Meanwhile, back in Sparta..... D