"Hypapsists" Topic

What did the Hypaspists of Alexanders army look like? As he crossed into Asia, not after years of campaigning! My hypothesis is that any contingents not pike-armed in the Macedonian fashion were called and used as Hypaspists. So any contingents in the traditional hoplite panoply were Hypaspists.

I'd like your thoughts, please.

Interesting idea. I thought there were separate references to Greek allies though?

I like to equate the Hypaspists as the special forces of Alexander's army. They were frequently used in non-traditional means. Depending upon the terrain, enemy, weather, alignment of the moon, etc… they could be deployed in full hoplite panoply as you suggest, or stripped down nearly naked for an operation that required them to be nimble.

I have a book… somewhere in the library. Let me dig and I'll pass on the title/author/ISBN

The Iphicrates Hoplite may or may not be the inspiration for the Hypaspists of Philip and Alexander. As Lou says they were the special forces of the Macedonian army, so how you depict them is up to you. Light, heavy or medium infantry?

Whats the difference between the Hypaspists and the foot companions?

Foot companions = Pezhetairoi, foot warriors generally relating to the Macedonian phalanx. Double check me on this, because I'm just using my memory on this one!

Since there is no contemporary description or their arms and armour this is a long running argument (one that used to pop up from time to time in Slingshot). Arguments were made for them being pike armed, armed like hoplites, armed with javelins or being very flexible swapping between weapons/armour as needed. LHI, LMI, or MI in old WRG parlance. Some arguments were stronger than others, but none emerged as a clear cut winner in my mind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypaspists

So. It seems to me that the Peltasts got heavier arms and equipment as time went on and the Hypaspists got lighter arms and equipment. This would seem to even out somewhat. Could the Roman legionaries be said to be hypaspists/peltasts?

The wiki link is weak even for wikipedia. The citation for them to be armed as hoplites is from an Osprey book in which the argument they were armed as hoplites seems to run that they were primarily used in rough terrain and seige warfare etc where the pike is not the most appropriate weapon.

Hands up those who think hoplite shield, 8 foot spear and armour is best suited to fighting in rough terrain.

Similarly the argument goes that as hoplites they gave flexibilty linking the right wing of the infantry to the cavalry.

Where else are hoplites described as a tactically flexible arrangement? If they are we need to rewrite all wargames rules

To spontoon: peltasts = pelta (small shield) + javelin. This is very far from the large legionary scutum and sword armed troops (with added pila). Roman legionaries are not peltasts.

Diadochoi;

You missed my comment about Roman legionaries evolving from hypaspists as hypaspists become lighter and peltasts become heavier. With the two types of pila the legionary seems to have taken on both roles.

Anyway, that wasn't my main line of thought. At what point do peltasts and hypaspists cross was my question? Obviously the sarissa armed phalangists needed more mobile troops and peltasts seem to have become more heavily equipped as time went on. Is there a time/army where this can be pinpointed?

Sorry but I do not see the evolution, two seperate lines of military tradition Italian vs Greek. Legionaires are always armoured, with large scutum and primarily swordsmen, with added pila to give them a short range punch. They evolved from hoplites. They are always heavy infantry.

Peltasts start out with small shields and javelins and evolve in various directions some of which, such as the Thureophoroi or Thorakitai end up being close to legionaires (though with thrusting spears in place of pila). By this point though they are not peltasts in the classical sense. The word peltast changes its meaning through the centuries and is also misused.

Velites are the roman equivalent of classical peltasts.

On the original topic I do not see hypapists and peltasts ever crossing. Those units later derived from hypaspists are probably pike armed (silver shields etc). Pre-Philip these troops are Hoplites. Post Alexander they are pikemen. During Alexanders reign there is very little evidence of how they were armed when drawn up in the main battle line. They could (at least some) be used in rough terrain, quick marches are storming fortifications – all of which are inconsistent with being either pike armed or hoplites. They were the elite, could they be dual armed? Different styles on different days? Since Alexander clearly did this himself (he stormed fortifications in person, but clearly not as a mounted Companion) I see no problem with dual roles. Whatever they were during this period they could form up in the position of honour on the right flank of the infantry the main battleline and so were not what would be known as peltasts at that time. Alexander took enough such troops with him and they are not put in the main battleline. They could have formed in the main batteline as hoplites or as pikemen, I see no conclusice evidence either way.

It's very easy to get in a tangle if you try to pin one description on peltasts, as these evolved over time . Also peltasts were not psiloi, they were more of a dual role troop, heavier armed than light troops, but not as heavily as "line" infantry, often originally recruited from Thrace where the fighting style developed. I would say that Roman Velites were closer to the javelin armed psiloi.
As far as Hypapists were concerned Duncan Head in the old WRG publication (Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars) identifies them as troops armed with the argive shield on the Alexander sarcophagus and argues that as this made the use of a sarrissa impractical they would have been armed either with the thrusting spear or javelins, perhaps both, or either as required.
So while the hypapists seem to have evolved into elite phalagite units in successor armies, it could well be that under Alexander they performed the role of peltasts/theurophoroi later provided by mercenaries in successor armies.

It seems to me safer to say that the Hypaspists were closer to Hoplites than anything else, as form follows function.

According to what I have read, Hypaspists were there to guard the flanks of the pike phalanx. If that is so, and I have no reason to doubt that, then being armed as Hoplites with sword, spear and perhaps javelins, makes perfect sense.

How are troops armed as hoplites useful to guard the flanks of a phalanx? Hoplites do not have the tactical flexibility of peltasts etc.

Also Alexander had lots of Thracian infantry the equivalent of later theurophoroi in armament and he did not use these on the phalanx flanks.

Finally the hypaspists were used only on one flank of the phalanx. If they were needed to protect the phalanx flanks why not spilt them in two and use half on each flank?

The whole evidence that they were armed as hoplites seems to come from the Alexander sarcophagus, but we do not know if the soldier depicted with the argive shield was a hypaspist or not.

Hypaspist could be pike, they could be hoplites, they probably did have the flexibility for at least some to be javelin armed equivalents to theurophoroi (unclear shield type but not argive) when needed. The evidence is scant though.

I agree that velites are not the equivalent of Alexander period peltasts, but peltasts start as pelta + javelin which is virtually identical armament to velites. Earlier representations of fighting style are as psiloi, but later the assumption was they fought in less open order (theurophoroi probably fought in close order). Note replacement of the pelta with the theuros changes troop name, but how much of the usual fighting style changed before this? With the numbers of velites present in a legion there is also the question of how densely they fought and the degree of flexibility in fighting order. As wargamers we fix on one order for each troop type, but Helenistic manuals at least make it clear this was not so. Peltasts should probably be allowed to be LMI or LI as the tactical situation requires, perhaps velites should as well?

Another theory for hypaspist armament is along the lines of Iphikratean troops, a lighter hybrid of hoplite and peltast. This could serve in the flank-guarding role.

I agree that the hoplite phalanx wasn't sufficiently agile.

Mind you, their challenges in manuoeuvre weren't anywhere near as great as that for pike phalanxes.

I never said that the Hypaspists were formed as a phalanx, only that, in my own opinion, they were armed and armored as hoplites.

Seems to me that they would still be flexible enough to do what needed to be done to protect one flank of the Phalangite pike phalanx.

Hypaspists like just about every other troop in the early Macedonian army are impossible to pin down exactly. We can formulate a guess, but that's about all.
Careful reading of the sources reveal a troop type that could do many different types of missions, and also reveal that certain men were regarded as the swiftest- or lightest armed (and assumed armored) to carry out missions separate from the main body.

The hypaspist seems to have evolved from the desire at the Macedonian court to appear more modern and civilized by arming their guards as hoplites… a class of warrior that did not exist in Macedonia. There are depictions of these earlier hoplites in tombs that pre-date Alexander.

One of the best sources for colors and gear of Alexander's infantry is this from Agios Athanasios Tumulus:

I also like the depiction of the hypaspists here,

link

but the purple tunics is mostly conjecture and if true would be quite late in Alexander's campaigns when he gave the army new gear. This is the reconstruction from the "Alexander Sarcophagus"

Much of the role of the hypaspist corps on the battlefield is muddled by lots of speculation. A common theory is that the hypaspist was a lighter hoplite, created to keep a hinge between the cavalry and the phalanx, and tactically this seems viable, but does not necessarily mean a difference in equipment from a regular hoplite. Later on at the Hydaspes the hypaspists may have been armed with pikes, as they definitely were later during the Successor wars.

But all of this is confusing… one can go back to the beginning of the reformed Macedonian army under Philip II and one finds that all infantry were trained in spear and javelin tactics, so that is where the idea is created that the hypaspist could be a super peltast, plus the fact that Philip II knew Iphicrates- the great tactical reformer, adds weight to the argument…. but in sources and in extant artwork we see a common theme, the hypaspists had shield and fought in the battle line, and therefore probably had armor- typically the linothorax style. They do not often skirmish with javelins in battles… but similar to the rest of the phalanx are capable of this in smaller actions, and in the incredible amount of sieges and city assaults by Alexander's army.
The tumulus shows typical tunic styles, and helmets.

So the only real question emerges, in my mind, as to whether the hypaspist carried the larger heavier Greek Argive shield known as an aspis, or the smaller Macedonian style copied from the Illyrians, also called an aspis… my guess is that Macedonian hypaspists carried the smaller shields, but when on actual guard duty, the royal sentries may have used the old style Argive shields, for the smaller companies that were on the actual Royal sentry duty… and the smaller shield- the same as used by the phalanx may have been better suited for the hypaspists while skirmishing, or switching to thrusting spears for hand to hand combat. Still the tumulus seems to shwo too soldiers with larger Argive style shields, and one that seems smaller, which could be a pezhetairoi shield.

And as an aside, there is very little that Rome developed from the Macedonians, and vice versa.. at least until after Rome had destroyed the major empires based on phalanxes.

Troops share the same equipment without sharing tactical doctrine. Hoplite equipment is not so heavy that wearers couldn't have flexible combat role. After all hoplite formations moved swiftly enough at Marathon.

JJartist, excellent summary. Thanks.

Only thing to add would be that many cities in Italy and Sicily were founded by Greek states and followed Greek military traditions, so Rome was in contact with these earlier. Rome also fought Pyrrhus forty odd years after Alexander died and a long time before they destroyed the Empires based on pike phalanxes. They learnt from this but did not develop traditions from them. Likewise there was some flow from Italy to Greece, for example Tarantine cavalry and much later on immitation legionaires. In the main though two independent military evolutions

While it is considerably later, Bithynian funerary stelae show a warrior with a long spear, not a sarrissa, and small round shield.To me this suggests troops who could use a sarrissa and form part of the phalanx or operate independently with a spear when required. Personally I believe this was probably how the hypapists operated, and JJartists comment about using the argive shield while on royal sentry duty would seem a possible explanation of the Alexander sarcophagus.
The weight of the argive shield and the method of supporting it so that the bearer relied on the man to his right to provide half his protection would seem to make this unsuitable for dispersed role. The thureos would allow a more flexible approach, so while thureophoroi were probably close order in the city states during the intermediate phase between them using hoplites and phalangites, albeit with more flexibilty than the hoplite phalanx, those serving as mercenaries in successor armies that deployed citizen phalanxes probably filled the traditional peltast role. protecting the phalanx from opposing light troops seems to have been a constant requirement, usually performed by some sort of peltast, who tactically seemed distinct from psiloi.

On a side note, isn't it believed that the Thureophoroi where Thorakitai were heavily influenced by Italian and Celtic styles, with some people even go as far as calming that Pyrrhus was the first user of such troops due to contact with Brutians and the like?

As Bobm says above, re guarding the flank of a pike phalanx (or acting as a hinge in conjunction with the Companions), I don't believe that this task would be incompatible with hoplite gear and an aspis.

We know that hoplites could advance at the run (ie Marathon, above). The challenge would be reforming quickly into a line after advancing at the run, and well-drilled hypaspists would have been capable of doing this. They would be picked men and presumably fitter than the average, which would help them to move more quickly than the phalanx or keep in touch with the cavalry.

Moreover, the relatively better protection offered by the large shield and hoplite gear would be invaluable if there were enemy missile troops about, or if they were engaged by heavy enemy foot.

Cheers, Simon

Thureophoroi and their less common armored kinfolk thorakitai are simply mercenary infantry, post Early Successors.

They are unarmored, they are named after the cheaper Celtic style shield that became popular after the Galatian invasions (but had been in use in Thrace for quite awhile), and that shield allowed troops to skirmish, operate easier in the rough, or fight hand to hand with spears. They are the troops that fight in sieges, and garrison bases…. in battle they can perform as light infantry covering flanks, but probably formed in ranks just like hoplites. In other operations they can skirmish and their fluidity allows them to cover broken ground and hills that phalanxes eschew.
The thureophoros in Achaea developed skirmisher tactics, the thureophoros in Syria often was deployed right next to the phalanx in battle order.

They are mostly Greeks, but the later empires happily armed any willing locals as thureophoroi. In effect they are similar to the later Roman Empire Auxiliary infantry that fought more often than the legions, and could be light infantry or heavy infantry depending on the needs of the day.

So, hypaspists could be armed like hoplites?

On the running in armour thesis; some of the races at the Olympic games were run in armour with shield!

"So, hypaspists could be armed like hoplites?"

---> It's one of the likely possibilities… but the Argive rimmed shield was expensive, and the Macedonian un-rimmed version was at least more commonly accessible.. again, it is distinctly stated in sources that there were lighter equipped men in the guards units…. so it is distinctly possible that units were not uniformly equipped. In Greek armies the shield was provided by the soldier, and was one standard by which a 'hoplite' was measured. We have no such details for Macedonia… other than the shield at Vergina- which is close to a hoplite shield in size, and the Sarcophagus art which clearly shows hoplite style shields..

The most common Sarcophagus view with hoplite shield:

Lesser seen views:

(Of course we don't know if these are hypaspists-- but they seem a close guess)

Again tactically we have no idea how hypaspists formed or fought, at Hydaspes they are described as forming a closed formation, in other battles they seem to be able to traverse terrain without too much ado… so a phalanx seems less likely…. but the evidence seems to point to a loose order based on files that could close up similar to the phalanx… and one could speculate that the hypaspists remained in a the looser order most of the time, and assuming better drill, and shorter spears and/or javelins, they would be more nimble than the pike phalanx even if in a phalanx. Note also that the hypaspists faced the Athenian hoplites at Chaeronea, one would assuem that there at least they were in a phalanx to meet the Athenian phalanx on equal terms.