Macedonian Hypastpists under Alexander

[Andreas Johansson]

Does that explain why the Companions are sometimes depicted shieldless but imply that they did have shields (to revive a 1970s WRG 3rd edition debate...)

This bit may be relevant:

Alexander saw only a few of the enemy still occupying a ridge, along which lay his route, he ordered his body-guards and the companions around him to take their shields, mount their horses, and ride to the hill; and when they reached it, if those who had occupied the position awaited them, he said that half of them were to leap from their horses, and to fight as foot-soldiers, being mingled with the cavalry.

The usual interpretation would be they had shields but normally didn't use them on horseback.

[RichT]

Possibly, but we don't really know that. Arrian I.14.2 refers to , "the hypaspists of the Companions". Which some discount as a textual corruption, but which taken literally suggests that the hypaspists may have originally meant "carriers of the Companion cavalrymen's aspides".

Yes fair point - but the point I am really trying to make is we shouldn't take it literally. Whoever's shields the Hypaspists are supposedly carrying, it is still an honorific title originally (and still) applied to a much smaller body, with meanings like (LSJ) 'shield-bearer, armour-bearer, esquire' etc - whether of the king or of his Companions (and which Companions - the original literal Companions, or the whole body of cavalry - it doesn't really matter. It doesn't tell us anything about the shields they are actually carrying in action.

I'm not going to get into cavalry shields...

[Imperial Dave]

Possibly, but we don't really know that. Arrian I.14.2 refers to , "the hypaspists of the Companions". Which some discount as a textual corruption, but which taken literally suggests that the hypaspists may have originally meant "carriers of the Companion cavalrymen's aspides".

Yes fair point - but the point I am really trying to make is we shouldn't take it literally. Whoever's shields the Hypaspists are supposedly carrying, it is still an honorific title originally (and still) applied to a much smaller body, with meanings like (LSJ) 'shield-bearer, armour-bearer, esquire' etc - whether of the king or of his Companions (and which Companions - the original literal Companions, or the whole body of cavalry - it doesn't really matter. It doesn't tell us anything about the shields they are actually carrying in action.

I'm not going to get into cavalry shields...

a bit like the Queen's life guards these days