06-15-2010, 06:02 AM
'Old Husker' Fred wrote:
I would certainly agree with much of this post, as we have seen from the (very!) detailed discussion here, it is not possible to be definitive, but if we move away from the literature, it can be shown from the iconography that some Macedonian troops were armed as Hoplites, and the obvious, or at least most likely candidates, are the Hypaspists.....certainly, I and many others are of the view that the weight of evidence favours 'dory/longche/Aspis' armament, and have been for thirty years !! ( see e.g. "Warfare in the Classical World" - Warry 1980 and "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars"-Duncan Head 1982). All the archaeological evidence coming to light since then supports this view. ( notably the so-called 'Philip' tomb, with its 'aspides' and 'dory' heads, but no 'sarissa' parts,for when an Argead King fought on foot it was with the 'Hypaspists'.)
The reference here in Arrian is not to any elite unit being formed, but to an expedition Alexander puts together to 'mop up' after he defeats Porus at the Hydaspes.....He takes these infantry, the archers, the Agrianes, and all the mounted archers together with half the Companions. The rest of the Army are left with Craterus to consolidate.
That when Macedonian re-inforcements arrived at various points in Alexander's campaigns, the 'Hypaspists' were brought up to strength by promoting experienced and the best members of the pezhetairoi/phalanx is highly likely. That recruits were so promoted is not.
Overall, I would agree with Paralus - there can be little doubt the 'Argyraspides' were the 'Hypaspists' with silver-plated shields in lieu of bronze....
D ....such discussions encourage one to re-read and check the sources and usually something new will pop up....
As to the outcome of Parataikene, I would agree with both of you ! The battle, in it's simplest categorisation would have to described as 'indecisive'. Equally in modern terms it was a 'tactical win' for Eumenes, - in addition to the 'ground of tactical importance', consider that Antigonus lost 3,700 foot and 54 horse killed, with over 4,000 wounded, to Eumenes light losses of 540 foot, "very few" horse and 900 wounded - but a 'strategic draw', with both ultimately withdrawing for logistic reasons - supplies and winter quarters.
Quote:The often heated discussion regarding the true nature of hypaspists seems something unlikely to ever be resolved between true believers on any side of the issue, and certainly not through quoting from our far from complete and not always themselves well informed sources.
I would certainly agree with much of this post, as we have seen from the (very!) detailed discussion here, it is not possible to be definitive, but if we move away from the literature, it can be shown from the iconography that some Macedonian troops were armed as Hoplites, and the obvious, or at least most likely candidates, are the Hypaspists.....certainly, I and many others are of the view that the weight of evidence favours 'dory/longche/Aspis' armament, and have been for thirty years !! ( see e.g. "Warfare in the Classical World" - Warry 1980 and "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars"-Duncan Head 1982). All the archaeological evidence coming to light since then supports this view. ( notably the so-called 'Philip' tomb, with its 'aspides' and 'dory' heads, but no 'sarissa' parts,for when an Argead King fought on foot it was with the 'Hypaspists'.)
Quote: ......... ["picked troops from each batallion of heavy infantry" - Arrian 5.20]) and heavily filled-out with new recruits (thus, the Silver Shield's failure to hold good discipline as a unit at Paraetacene, losing vital order in pursuit to suffer a counter-attack and ultimately cost Eumenes that engagement).
The reference here in Arrian is not to any elite unit being formed, but to an expedition Alexander puts together to 'mop up' after he defeats Porus at the Hydaspes.....He takes these infantry, the archers, the Agrianes, and all the mounted archers together with half the Companions. The rest of the Army are left with Craterus to consolidate.
That when Macedonian re-inforcements arrived at various points in Alexander's campaigns, the 'Hypaspists' were brought up to strength by promoting experienced and the best members of the pezhetairoi/phalanx is highly likely. That recruits were so promoted is not.
Overall, I would agree with Paralus - there can be little doubt the 'Argyraspides' were the 'Hypaspists' with silver-plated shields in lieu of bronze....
Quote: Still, all that having been said, I do enjoy the discussions on each side and find them very educational toward deciding where I personally will 'pay my money and take my choice'.Indeed!
D ....such discussions encourage one to re-read and check the sources and usually something new will pop up....As to the outcome of Parataikene, I would agree with both of you ! The battle, in it's simplest categorisation would have to described as 'indecisive'. Equally in modern terms it was a 'tactical win' for Eumenes, - in addition to the 'ground of tactical importance', consider that Antigonus lost 3,700 foot and 54 horse killed, with over 4,000 wounded, to Eumenes light losses of 540 foot, "very few" horse and 900 wounded - but a 'strategic draw', with both ultimately withdrawing for logistic reasons - supplies and winter quarters.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
