Macedonian Hypastpists under Alexander

[T13A]

Hi

I'm putting together a list of figures I need for a Macedonian army under Alexander using Impetus rules. I was just wondering what the latest thinking was on how hypastpists were used and how they were armed. Under the Impetus army list I can have them as heavy infantry (Impetus = FP) armed with pikes or what Impetus calls 'light infantry' (FL) armed with long spear. (If its the former, does it beg the question of why they are called something different to phalangites)? So I guess my questions are:

Is there now a consensus on how hypastpists were used and armed?

If not are the two options above seen as fair?

And a follow on, did the role and armament of hypastpists change over time?

Many thanks for any help.

[Duncan Head]

There's a broad consensus now that they were armed as pikemen on the battlefield, I think, just as they were in their post-Alexander incarnation as Silver Shields. There may be less agreement on whether, and how, they were differently equipped on some non-battlefield occasions such as sieges or forced marches through the mountains.

Does it beg the question why they were called "something different to phalangites"? Well, the pezetairoi aren't called phalangites in the accounts of Alexander's battles, so no. When "phalangites" is used in Diodoros 18.2.3 (after Alexander's death and in a non-tactical context) there is no indication that it does not include the hypaspists.

[Patrick Waterson]

Duncan has pretty much summarised the current state of play.

I would add that Luke Ueda-Sarson deduced that the hypaspists were probably also armed with javelins - specifically the logkhe or lonchos, a 6' dual-use spear.  Whether they used these together with pikes or as an alternative to them (e.g. at the Hydaspes) is unclear; Luke adduces the duel between a Macedonian with his 'national weapons' and a Greek with a large club [sorry reference not to hand] to show that javelin and pike may have been used together, and in that order.  If so, the natural choice for using such a combination would be the hypaspists, the most skilled infantry in the army.

[willb]

Hypaspist translates as shield bearer.  They were the foot guard of the Macedonian army.

[Patrick Waterson]

And a follow on, did the role and armament of hypaspists change over time?

By the time of Philip V the hypaspists are called 'peltasts' but it is not clear whether they have peltast armament, i.e. javelins or long spear plus javelins, or whether they continue to use pikes, perhaps together with javelins.

They still seem to be the crack infantry component of the Macedonian army.  Others may have something to add.

[Imperial Dave]

Christopher Matthew devotes a little bit of time to the scholarly debate on the Hypaspists' armament looking at the javelin/spear/sarissae proposals and factoring in discussions on the shield used and armour worn. There is a bit of a summary of different commentators opinions on page 418 in Matthew's 'An Invincible Beast' book. He mentions about a dozen of so historians and commentators opinions there

Rereading it, I think Matthew is more in favour of them being armed as hoplites but doesnt discount them being armed as pikemen either. He does offer an opinion that he feels its unlikely they acted as skirmishers though

[Erpingham]

From previous debates, I have learned enough to know we need to be cautious about the terms hypaspist and peltast when it comes to Hellenistic matters.  Both are examples of naming troops after their shields but IIRC confusion can arise which has baffled prper scholars of the time.  A macedonian peltast can, I think, mean a pikeman with the rimless Macedonian shield, not just a lightly armed skirmisher.  Also, Hypaspist may mean these guardsmen once carried the Argive aspis or may continue to do so on palce duty but had changed their kit to match the rest of the infantry under Philip.  So, all very convoluted. 

Given the scholarly debate, I would be tempted to approach them on the basis of how you see their role in battle.  Given the things they did, how do you need to represent them under your chosen rules to get a historical effect?

[RichT]

In the case of Hypaspists this is NOT a case of naming troops after their shields. The Hypaspists are the shield bearers of the King - it's an honorary title, like Companions, or Foot Companions.

It's quite likely that originally the Companions were the king's close companions and the Hypaspists his personal shield bearers, attendants and guards (as they continued to be under Alexander and later). The name Companion was at some point transferred to the whole of the Macedonian cavalry (by Philip II?), and the name Foot Companion was similarly applied to a body of infantry, perhaps originally just the elite/permanent guard infantry. At some point (under Philip/Alexander?) the Foot Companion title was transferred to the whole of the Macedonian infantry, and the Hypaspist name applied to the original Foot Companions. The original Hypaspists (king's immediate attendants) became Bodyguards. This sort of extension of honorific titles to ever widening circles and larger bodies of men seems to be a Macedonian trait. The original Companions of the king then became, after Alexander, his Friends (Philoi) - and this title too underwent a widening process - Friends, First Friends, First and Honoured Friends etc.

By the time of Philip V, the body of infantry originally called Hypaspists under Alexander are consistently called Peltasts by Polybius. There isn't complete agreement what this implies except that it is certain that they are pikemen, at least in pitched battles (they might have been, like Napoleonic light infantry, dual role). The Hellenistic peltast is a strange beast, but put aside any thoughts of javelin-armed skirmishers, which in the Hellenistic period seem to no longer be called peltasts. The tacticians define peltasts as intermediate between hoplites (phalangites) and light armed, with long spears, though shorter than the phalangites proper, and smaller shields.

I don't think Christopher Matthew is very good on all this sadly, though he does collect other discussions. Luke Ueda-Sarson is good.

My personal opinion FWIW: the orginal Foot Companions of Philip were the first users of the sarissa and smaller Macedonian shield ('pelte'), and were called Hypaspists under Alexander. Under Philip the mass of the Macedonian infantry were armed as heavy phalangites ('hoplites', but armed with sarissa and larger shields - whether Macedonian in design, ie rimless, or standard Argive shield, can be argued over). This pattern continued in the Hellenistic armies - the mass of the phalanx as heavy armed hoplites (with sarissa and large shields), the Hypaspists / Silver Shields / Peltasts with smaller shields and shorter sarissae (but still two handed and fighting in a phalanx) - with the option to strip down to lighter kit for special missions.

Agreed that when representing them in a wargame you can pretty much do what you like and challenge others to prove you wrong...

[Tim]

Mr T, thank you for the thoughts.  Interesting point on the widening numbers who get to be part of units with honourific (correcting your spelling there) titles.  Much the same happens under Napoleon.  You go from a very small consular guard to the 1814 campaign where practically every combat formation is designated 'Young Guard' even if they were only called up last Wednesday.

This sort of extension of honorific titles to ever widening circles and larger bodies of men seems to be a Macedonian trait. The original Companions of the king then became, after Alexander, his Friends (Philoi) - and this title too underwent a widening process - Friends, First Friends, First and Honoured Friends etc.

[Imperial Dave]

Agreed that when representing them in a wargame you can pretty much do what you like and challenge others to prove you wrong...

absolutely and applicable to other things like A-S cavalry (runs and hides......)

[Erpingham]

In the case of Hypaspists this is NOT a case of naming troops after their shields. The Hypaspists are the shield bearers of the King - it's an honorary title, like Companions, or Foot Companions.

Thanks for the correction Richard.  I'd made a wrong assumption there. But I think what did it was the fact that most reconstructions I see these days seem to show hypaspists with the rimmed aspis.  If it doesn't come from the name, what is the evidence for it?

[RichT]

But I think what did it was the fact that most reconstructions I see these days seem to show hypaspists with the rimmed aspis.  If it doesn't come from the name, what is the evidence for it?

Good question... There isn't any evidence really, though this is indeed the standard interpretation.

The Alexander Sarcophagus shows infantry with rimmed aspides, and it's taken as a point of faith that it's impossible to carry a sarissa and a rimmed aspis (we've had this discussion on this forum not long ago). If you believe the Sarcophagus is an accurate portrayal of Macedonian infantry, and that rimmed shield carriers can't be the Foot Companions, then that leaves the Hypaspists. But I think this is a weak argument, since (if for no other reason) I don't believe it is impossible to carry rimmed shield and sarissa.

Also Markle has a lot of stuff about the monument at Beroea and shield depictions at Dion which show rimmed aspides alongside smaller unrimmed shields. His conclusion (commonly accepted to some extent, though I think Markle is bonkers) is that the rimmed shields belong to the Hypaspists and the unrimmed ones to the bulk of the phalanx. I think it's at least as likely - and in fact more likely given that the Hypaspists of Alexander transformed into the later Antigonid Peltasts - that the small peltai belong to the Hypaspists and the rimmed shields to the main phalanx. But this is, be warned, a non-standard view.

Either way, the important point is that the name itself doesn't help - Hypaspists doesn't mean 'carriers of aspides' it means 'carriers of the King's aspis'.

honourific (correcting your spelling there)

Ooo well the OED agrees with my spelling. I never argue with the OED.

[Duncan Head]

Either way, the important point is that the name itself doesn't help - Hypaspists doesn't mean 'carriers of aspides' it means 'carriers of the King's aspis'.

Possibly, but we don't really know that. Arrian I.14.2 refers to οἱ ὑπασπισταὶ τῶν ἑταίρων, "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".

IIRC there was a "Ancient Warfare" article recently which suggested that the three battalions of the hypaspists (if we still believe in three battalions at the beginning of Alex's reign, of course,  the direct evidence is only from a few years later...) had a different origin.

[Tim]

Arrian I.14.2 refers to οἱ ὑπασπισταὶ τῶν ἑταίρων, "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".

Duncan

Very interesting.  That brings forth 2 questions.  1, 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...), and 2, that the hypaspists should be Ps(S) who support the Kn(F) Companions?

Just thinking outloud...

[Mark G]

Which were the chaps reported to have lain under their shields and let things roll over them when Alex as pushing through the iranian mountain passes?