Pezhetairoi, the Guards and Hypaspists.

[Paullus Scipio]

but there are dozens of representations of earlier cavalrymen with every kind of shield.

......could you give some references/dates for these please? Are we talking in greece?

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

See the "Cavalry name" thread. They're early 5th century. At least those posted there. Of course some are earlier.

[Paralus]

And to Paralus ( doubtless peacefully asleep as I type... :wink: ) " ..the King's shield" ? Nice hyperbole....is it in a source, or is it your own fine turn of phrase?......... certainly not the proper meaning, or literal one, of 'Hypaspist'

Indeed I was; well deserved too I might add being the biggest "mother" in this house!

I have to say that the hairs on the neck rise at 'hyperbole'! Indeed and hurrumph.

Giannis and I are on the same page here. The problem with the statement quoted above is the word "literal". The ancients were just as capable of metaphor and colloquialism as are moderns. The predeliction with reading such terms absolutely literally is a misnomer. One might as well argue that the US Seals are defined by the animal or fought only in water; that the US "Airborne" (who after two parachute drops fought exclusively on foot in Europe) fought only from aircraft. The term hoplite, from the panoply worn, can mean different things at different times as that panoply altered.

It is entirely clear and unarguable that the Macedonian king had three "units" detailed for his protection: the paides basilike (who went on to the agema of the hypaspists), the somatophylakes and the hypaspists. These all performed the duties of kings' guard. It is my view that the term is not solely related to shield type or size but the action of being the king's foot shield. Indeed Phylarchus (although wishing to point out the extravagances of Alexander's court) depicts the Silver Shields (500 from memory) on guard duty - with sarisa (yes I know Paullus: I'll look it up later at 08:45 I need to get to the office).

Other troops - the aesthetairoi - may well have been the Macedonian's hoplite troops (from upper Macedonia).

[Paullus Scipio]

I have to say that the hairs on the neck rise at 'hyperbole'! Indeed and hurrumph.

Aw, shucks, no offence intended, as I am sure you know! :wink: Settle, Gretel !
What can I do to sooth any ruffled feathers?

The ancients were just as capable of metaphor and colloquialism as are moderns. The predeliction with reading such terms absolutely literally is a misnomer.

Certainly agree with that...as I have remarked on other threads, the Greeks tended to be 'slangy' and 'witty' in their use of terminology - witness 'kontus' originally lit: a large pole, bargepole, used on Triremes for fending off other vessels or beaches, which the Hellenistic Greeks used as a slang nickname for a thick two-handed cavalry lance...

The term hoplite, from the panoply worn, can mean different things at different times as that panoply altered.

We are agreed here too. Hopla basically means 'warriors equipment', and can mean anything from basic shield and spear; to helmet, shield, body armour, sword, greaves, arm-guards,leg-guards etc, and anything in between.

It is entirely clear and unarguable that the Macedonian king had three "units" detailed for his protection: the paides basilike (who went on to the agema of the hypaspists), the somatophylakes and the hypaspists. These all performed the duties of kings' guard. It is my view that the term is not solely related to shield type or size but the action of being the king's foot shield.

I think this is common ground too - all 'surrounded' and 'protected' the King in one sense or another, just as later monarchs had various Guard-status units who all performed slightly different functions at different times and places, for example the myriad Guard units of Louis XIV of France who all had different functions. I think most, including me, would agree that you cannot take a literal meaning solely, and then say "therefore their armament must have been so", but in our previous debate on the subject I took the view that the term was an 'indicator', which was consistent with other evidence which made it more likely than not, in my ( and others) view that Alexander's original Hypaspists were basically 'Aspis and Dory' armed until the 'Silver Shields' ,as they had become, disappeared from History.Which doesn't mean on other occasions they couldn't have carried different equipment for specific tasks. (However, throughout Military History it is rare, indeed only possible to Full-time Better-than-Average Professionals, for troops to have the necesary skill-at-arms for more than one type of fighting....though many commanders have wished for and sought such versatility. )
Nor is it terribly controversial that later Macedonian Guard Units were essentially 'Pelta and Sarissa' armed......the only point we really differ on is when that change occurred...the evidence is conflicting, and much depends on how much weight you give each piece, which is why you and I can both hold valid, but differing, points of view on the subject...... :wink:
I hope you will take the trouble to post the relevant passage in Phylarchus fully, and the context....it sounds interesting. Is it this one? I don't have the Greek, but this translation doesn't seem to mention 'sarissa'......

the expense of all this, says Phylarchus, was far less than the daily sums squandered by Alexander; for he had a tent capable of containing a hundred couches, and fifty golden pillars supported it. And over it were spread golden canopies wrought with the most superb and costly embroidery, to shade all the upper part of it. And first of all, five hundred Persian Melophori stood all round the inside of it, clad in robes of purple and apple-green; and besides them there were bowmen to the number of a thousand, some clad in garments of a fiery red, and others in purple; and many of them had blue cloaks. And in front of them stood five hundred Macedonian Argyraspides; and in the middle of the tent was placed a golden chair, on which Alexander used to sit and transact business, his body-guards standing all around. And on the outside, and round the tent, was a troop of elephants regularly equipped, and a thousand Macedonians, in Macedonian uniform; and then ten thousand Persians: and the number of those who wore purple amounted to five hundred, to whom Alexander gave this clothing for them to wear. And though he had such a numerous retinue of friends and servants, still no one dared to approach Alexander of his own accord; so great was his dignity and the veneration with which they regarded him.

Phylarcus evidence, I would say, is not one we can give too much weight/credibilty to.......though being relatively contemporary, writing a mere hundred or so years later (after 220 BC, when Macedonian Guards certainly did carry 'Pelta and Sarissa') he seems to preserve some authentic- sounding detail, even if it is (and it may not be) exaggerated...... Do you have a view on Phylarchus?

Other troops - the aesthetairoi - may well have been the Macedonian's hoplite troops (from upper Macedonia).

...as to the mysterious and controversial Asthetaroi, that is worthy of a thread by itself! I assume you will post some evidence for this idea? I don't think I've seen too many proponents of the idea that they were 'Hoplites', other than from those who wish to explain away the certain presence in the Macedonian Army of 'Hoplite armed' 'Dory and Aspis' troops, and don't like the idea of these being 'Hypaspists'. As mountain/Hillmen, they would be unique in Greece if 'Hoplites' - a product of the urban Polis were their main strength.....

Oh, well, doubtless you will put us all out of suspense in good time.....

[Paralus]

I have to say that the hairs on the neck rise at 'hyperbole'! Indeed and hurrumph.

Aw, shucks, no offence intended, as I am sure you know! :wink: Settle, Gretel !
What can I do to sooth any ruffled feathers?

None taken. Something you cannot do: agree!

I took the view that the term was an 'indicator', which was consistent with other evidence which made it more likely than not, in my ( and others) view that Alexander's original Hypaspists were basically 'Aspis and Dory' armed until the 'Silver Shields', as they had become, disappeared from History.Which doesn't mean on other occasions they couldn't have carried different equipment for specific tasks. (However, throughout Military History it is rare, indeed only possible to Full-time Better-than-Average Professionals…

As you point out elsewhere in your post, there is room for both interpretations. I do though stick to the view that the nomenclature is in no way literal and that, given the years of service, these troops will have utilised varied armament. Their history under Alexander advertises it writ large.

“Full-time Better-than-Average Professionalsâ€

[PMBardunias]

Indeed. And, I would argue that there existed a shield that was neither a pelte nor a classical Greek hoplite aspis involved. There is archaeological evidence for these with diameters of some 75cm or so.

Are you referring to the shields that Markle described in his paper on the shield monument? For those who have not seen them, they were like an aspis with a smaller diameter. This made them very concave since the depth did not change, and they were rimmed if I recall. I always wondered where these shields were used. Do you have Liampi's recent book on the Macedonian shield?

You've drawn a number of analogies now that are not logically consistant- I do this far tool often as well, so I feel for you. The SEALS are named after seals! Specifically because they are amphibious. Otherwise they would be called the S.A.L.s and have a salt-shaker in their patches. This is oftenthe case, an image is chosen specifically because it describes the characteristics of the object, then the letters in the name are made to fit. It is rare that the two are not logically linked, and as far as I know never the case that you would choose something that had opposite attributes- let's say a camel for the unit. Thus when Peltae were common, you'd not use the term aspis in the name of a unit not carrying such.

This could have been ancestral, like 19th c. Grenadiers, who did once throw grenades, but there is usually a link. That said, i think they were able to arm as needed for the occaision- surely not climbing ladders with aspises, even if they normally carried them in battle. They also did not climb ladders with sarissa, so either way, there was some rearmament needed.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

I do agree they were armed as needed for the occasion. However you seem to imply that a hoplite could not climb a ladder with an aspis,and this does not seem correct to me. After all,all the previous ages it was hoplites who were taking towns and forts.
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o118 ... 9511_b.jpg
I'm sure the hoplites were not waiting for the gates to open,when they were employed in a siege!
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

I do agree they were armed as needed for the occasion. However you seem to imply that a hoplite could not climb a ladder with an aspis,and this does not seem correct to me. After all,all the previous ages it was hoplites who were taking towns and forts.
I'm sure the hoplites were not waiting for the gates to open,when they were employed in a siege!

I'm curious to know how many occaisons there were of such assaults over walls by hoplites in full panoply, with dory. You could of course sling your shield over your back or simply drop the antilabe as you noted in another thread and hold a spear in the left hand. Its not the climbing of the ladder that is the problem, its the climbing into spear armed foes while trying to hold an aspis over your head- as you can see from the image you attached, the positions are limited and akward, for the radius of the shield makes you lean far back if you try to hold it perpendicular over your head. I don't mean to say that they can't do it, only that they would be at a disadvantage and if peltae were available, why wouldn't they use them?

There is of course the possibility that the Hypaspists were reluctant to assault the wall and later fell from two ladders put up to support Alexander simply because they were hoplites.

[Paralus]

Are you referring to the shields that Markle described in his paper on the shield monument? For those who have not seen them, they were like an aspis with a smaller diameter. This made them very concave since the depth did not change, and they were rimmed if I recall. I always wondered where these shields were used. Do you have Liampi's recent book on the Macedonian shield?

I do not have the book – more’s the pity. Yes, they are a part of those he mentions. More to the point are the numbers of shields that are in the 75cm diameter range (or a little more) that are not a traditional aspis but are certainly no ‘classic’ pelte of 60cm (the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles for example).

You've drawn a number of analogies now that are not logically consistant- I do this far tool often as well, so I feel for you. It is rare that the two are not logically linked, and as far as I know never the case that you would choose something that had opposite attributes- let's say a camel for the unit. Thus when Peltae were common, you'd not use the term aspis in the name of a unit not carrying such.

No analogy is perfect: these are simply pulled for the exercise. The idea is that Seals only fight in water? Airborne only from planes?

The link, as I’ve attempted to explain, is more in the performance or action of these troops in the field in my view. These troops were the king’s “companions on footâ€

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Possibly they did strip off,but maybe not,as Agasias could have worn any kind of armour. But surely enough,the hoplites wouldn't leave their big shields to klimb the ladders,for why would they be called "hoplites"?And we don't have to debate a lot. If I had a shield ready i'd try this with the rest of my armour,but someone of our Greek hoplite re-enactors can try it?
After all,Xenophon was there,he saw him taking off his armour,it's more a novelist comment and not clear implication that all the rest did the same. he would probably have said so.
Khaire
Giannis

[PMBardunias]

I do not have the book – more’s the pity. Yes, they are a part of those he mentions. More to the point are the numbers of shields that are in the 75cm diameter range (or a little more) that are not a traditional aspis but are certainly no ‘classic’ pelte of 60cm (the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles for example).

I don't have it either, (is it in German?) but I have a review. The author posits that Hypaspists were niether hoplites nor sarissaphoroi, but lighter armed troops with only helmet, intermediate shield, and lonche. One thing cited is that they regularly follow up cavalry charges. There evidently is a tomb found with a panoply like this that is attributed to a hypaspist at Agios Anathasios (or some agios simmilar).

[quote] Once the term pezhetairoi no longer separated and highlighted the priviledged nature of these troops, they took the title “hypaspsists of the companionsâ€

[Paralus]

I agree this was Sarissa, but jumping peltasts up to punch over their weight in this manner does not preclude a hoplite force for stiffening.... There is a common perception that sarissaphoroi were immediately, and in and of themselves superior to hoplites, but this is doubtful.

As is (even though poorly) attested in Philip's early victories. I would argue that a good portion of Philip's hoplite forces (later) were mercenary. Indeed mercenaries are a significant contingent of all Macedonian armies.

Brasidas would not have needed allied hoplites as much as lighter troops, so this may have played into it. Besides light troops flee from your Spartan ally faster when you are stabbing him in the back.

Brasidas may have thought so, Perdiccas seemed to think otherwise; he brought along 3,000 hoplites in fact, all "Hellenes living in Macedonia". It is readily apparrent that Perdiccas had no Macedonian "hoplites" to bring and so the Macedonian king recruited "Hellenic hoplites" for the expedition - from Macedonia. Not even a king's guard of Macedonian hoplites is mentioned.

Indeed he devised the compact order and the equipment of the phalanx, imitating the close order fighting with overlapping shields of the warriors at Troy, and was the first to organize the Macedonian phalanx.

Perhaps you can shed some light on this for me, because I have never seen it answered. How do sarissaphoroi overlap shields with the sarissa shaft between them? over and under?

I've always taken great caution with the word "imitating". Not exact but in imitation of. In any case, the sarisa-armed phalanx is described as operating in both the pyknosis (compact) and synapsismos ("locked shields") order. I'd imagine the sarisa is carried under-hand and between files.

It is this line - the assertion that Philip introduced and perfected the close order phalanx fighting - which indicates that the Macedonians did not fight this way. They were, in fact, largely lightly armed peltasts and those of higher rank, horsemen prior to this "modernising".

[Paralus]

Just a further note on Thucydides' remarks. At his particular best, he states that the joint invasion army posesses 3,000 Hellenic hoplites all up (my error of composition previous post). Brasidas went north with 1,700 and sent some 500 to Scione and Mende. It would seem then that Perdiccas was able to raise some 1,800 hoplites from the "Hellenes living in Macedonia" (unless the Chalcidians and Acanthians supplied some). The other troops, aside from 1,000 cavalry (Macedonian and Chalcidian) are described simply as "Macedonian" or "a great crowd" of "natives".

After the "Macedonians" take off in the night - having been betrayed by the Illyrians - Brasidas forms his hoplites into a square with the "light troops in the centre" and stages a classic fighting withdrawal. All the while Thucydides is at pains to contrast the "native army" (the Illyrians) and the "Hellenes with Brasidas". The hoplites throughout are pointedly described as Hellenes. No mention of Macedonian hoplites outside those Lyncestians

The only hoplites in the invasion army of Perdiccas and Brasidas - and, for that matter, the whole engagement outside of those Lyncestians - were, it seems, either Brasidas' or the "force of hoplites from the Hellenes living in Macedonia".

[Paralus]

Phylarcus evidence, I would say, is not one we can give too much weight/credibilty to.......though being relatively contemporary, writing a mere hundred or so years later (after 220 BC, when Macedonian Guards certainly did carry 'Pelta and Sarissa') he seems to preserve some authentic- sounding detail, even if it is (and it may not be) exaggerated...... Do you have a view on Phylarchus.

Harking back to this – as I have not yet properly addressed it.

Phylarchus, like all sources, has his ‘agenda’. In this instance his prime purpose is in highlighting the extravagance of Alexander’s court near the end of the reign. We might find some of the excesses in table and riches difficult to swallow (pardon the pun) but that is not something that affects the essentials.

There most likely were large banquets (Opis for example) where such an ‘obscene’ display took place. The essentials will still be in place: the somatophylakes, paides basilike and the ‘Guards’ (hypaspists royal and otherwise); in general nowhere near Phylarchus’ numbers.

Markle acknowledges Bosworth’s argument (as given) that the regular (and royal) hypaspists utilised the sarisa when on guard duty. This is made plain by Arrian’s description of the murder of Clietus. Arrian relates the two descriptions of his end which are provided by his sources. In the first Alexander grabs a lonche from a somatophylake and runs him through. In the second Alexander grabs a sarissa from one of the "ordinary" guards (hypaspists) and runs him through.

The argument as to which eventual ending is correct is irrelevant and a distraction. The only disparity (apart from Clietus re-entering) between the recollections of Arrian’s original sources (Aristobulos or Ptolemy most likely) is whether the murder weapon came from a somatophylake or a hypaspist. If it came from the former it was a lonche; if from the latter, a sarissa.

From the text it appears that it was Aristobulos who described the weapon as being taken from an "ordinary guard" (hypaspist). Self evidently, to him, this was the normal weapon for a hypaspist to carry. At least in this situation.

The hypaspists then, is seems, stood guard with a sarissa; the Silver Shields (Alexander’s hypaspists) stood guard with a sarissa. Markle acknowledges this and then, as this notion doesn’t suit his argument, goes on to dismiss it by claiming such a weapon was ‘ceremonial’.