"Good hypaspist/ peltast figures?" Topic

I'm looking for some decent hypaspist models that show some movement in their role of lighter troops…so they could be hoplite-looking but in moving or even running poses (not something normally associated with hoplites). By peltast, I don't mean the javelin throwers; I put peltast because I'm doing a Macedonian/Pyrrhic army and apparently there's a name switch from hypaspist to peltast, just to make things more confusing for us millenia later.

Any ideas? I thought of the new victrix Greeks, but they look too stationary.

This is very confusing because in the Antigonid Macedonian army, one elite unit unit was called peltasts, but they were phalangites. They may have carried smaller shields. This is how Sekunda describes them in various texts. In the past it has led to greater confusion because folks assume these were hypaspists, a type of troop that simply disappeared as regiments after Alexander's Successors. Even in Pyrrhus' army the term hypaspist is only used to describe officers of his bodyguard and internal circle-- an expanded corps of somatophylaxes that numbered more than the 7-10 that were appointed by Alexander at various times.

Often the corps of Chaonians is shoe horned into the role of hypaspists in Pyrrhus' army based on IMP (Inherent Military Probability) in other words: guesswork.

So that being said the term peltast and early Macedonian/Pyrrhic would still mean a light infantryman most likely using a javelin and small shield, and not yet a phalangite. Even the Alexandrian hypaspists are described as pikemen at Hydaspes so the idea of dual role hypaspists seems to diminish after Alexander's death. This plus the rise of the use of the thureos which made multi use infantry outside the phalanx even more practical kind of diminishes the idea of the semi mythical dual role hypaspist.

So given all that I would be happy to use Victrix peltasts for this period, the only thing limiting them is the number of open faced types of helmets, the Thracian or Attic Phrygian style

Thanks for the clarification, JJ. I was originally going to make them the Chaonians, based on your WAB Epirote list. Would you still hold to their optional formations? Would you say that the Chaonians should only be used outside pike formation for special scenarios?. I'll go back again in Champion's "Pyrrhus" book – I know he mentioned them at least once. Maybe it was the night march.

Otherwise, when you say peltasts were light infantry do you mean exclusively skirmishers like back in the Peloponnesian War? "Light Inf" carries baggage for different game systems, thought most ancient writers I've seen mean skirmishers, it seems. There was an article in AW Vol 5.6 about "Hypaspist to Peltast", but now – looking at it – I think I see what you mean; seems like there was a disconnect, that the pike/special forces kind of peltast came later (I'm seeing dates of 222 and 197).

I don't think the identity of the Hypaspists as pikemen at Hydaspes is that cut and dried. There were pikemen in the main part of the battle and there were Hypaspists but the description of the elephants being engaged with missiles suggests they might have been in their lighter armed role.

To answer the OPs question: the Foundry Hypaspist figures (at least some of them) are armed with spears and hoplon type shields. Javelins will also work (which is what I am doing.)

I've always thought of Hypaspists as a troop type bridging the gap between the Phalanx and either the light Peltasts or the Cavalry. I see them with hoplon shields and spears, and perhaps slightly lighter armor to allow for quicker movement. In other words, Medium Infantry.

A reasonable interpretation of their use in battle. My theory is that they were very high quality troops who could be armed for a variety of roles, from pike phalanx to javelin armed skirmishers.

It's interesting that hypaspists disappear after Alexander and are not really used in successor armies until theurophori come along…at least that's what I'm hearing.

I just read the Battle of Gaza in the above-mentioned AW magazine between various successors (mostly Ptolemy/Seleucus vs. Antigonus' son Demetrius, et al.) in c.312 BC and there's no mention of specialized troops either (well, besides the elephant mines, but I don;t think they qualify as elite troops). No need for dual roles anymore? Too tricky to maintain? Maybe just order your most capable guys to do some task and see if they pull it off…or not.

The Chaeonians "seem" to be multi-purpose troops. This is based on how they are deployed or described, their proximity to Illyria. This makes it attractive to describe them as troops that can deploy with multiple weapons types in different roles based on the ground. So in this case would seem to be similar is style to the Alexandrian hypaspist.

The jury being out on hypaspists as phalangites in India, means the jury will always be out. After India the hypaspists seem to all be pike phalanxes, and the term as a unit type fades away, to be replaced by shield types. Most folks assume Ptolemy is talking about his own troops at the Hydaspes and he describes the phalanx, but he also describes locking shields-- which isn't necessarily a term that forces them to be carrying Argive shields, and the term is synaspismos which is applied to pike phalanxes as well…. so you can make up your own mind.

In the Alexandrian army the Hypaspists are a mixed bag. Some are lighter armed than others… the Agema seems to be as well equipped as hoplites. All seem to be able to drop their spears for javelins when needed. The Argive shield is really kind of terrible for sieges and climbing ladders but the Hypaspists are always involved in major assaults… it does seem unlikely they would have different shields. And then there is the Shipka pass shield defense against the rambling wagons of Thracian doom…. but the jury is still out whether the regular phalanx also covered themselves with their smaller shields too…

Anyway, the short of it is that I think you can make hypaspists in armor and hypaspists with no armor, they can have big shields or small, javelins or spears, or pikes… or even nude if swimming the Hydapses to do battle on an island in the middle of the river…… so some in peltast garb would be great.. the only real difference between a 'peltast' and a a javelin man is really the side arm and the willingness to use it…

I kind of like how they were portrayed in "Alexander" (Stone, 2004) where they ran into the gap with A's cavalry. There's not a lot of focus on them but you can tell that's who they're meant to be. They had shields (clearly not hopla but bigger than phalangites) but no body armor; but they did have leg greaves. I know that the battle as portrayed was actually multiple historical battles condensed, but I think Stone & company attempted an overall good effort…the best I've seen anyway…Anyone seen any other historical phalanx battles that are good? They should make one about the Anabasis/ Katabasis. If people like 300 (shudder) then they'd probably like one based closely on Xenophon.

Im not a believer in the idea that hypaspists were a light infantry bridge between the phalanx and the cavalry… this has been misconstrued as meaning "peltast". Hypaspists in Alexander's big battles never operate as light infantry, but they often do so the rest of the time. Partly this is because every Macedonian soldier in Alexander and Philip's army were trained to use spear, pike, and javelins.

However, they do often act as a bridge… this is most likely because their formation was more flexible than the phalanx. This may have been because they operated more like hoplites but in less dense formations.. since they operate as heavy infantry with lots of flexibility… the old "light heavy" infantry is a better description. In battles where they may not have used pikes, Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela, they seem to be able to negotiate terrain and stay in closer touch with the cavalry.

There were lighter armed hypaspist as noted above, but these may have been back rankers when formed in phalanx, and they could also use the well known exdromos tactics that hoplites had developed against light infantry enemies.

At Chaeronea the hypaspists take on the Athenian hoplites-- which imparts that at least the front ranks were armored and equipped equally to the Athenians best troops.

My take is that the difference between the pike phalanx and the hypaspist was simply doctrine and athletic ability.. the phalanx was close order that plodded along made up mostly of territoriality organized recruits. The hypaspists, recruited from the best of the army was close order that at times could run in loose order to a spot then quickly reform into a their formation * -- because they were well drilled and were less encumbered. This gave them the flexibility to stay in touch with the cavalry to some extent.

So in some way the equivalency to modern armies with their myriads of Guards, Rangers, Green Berets, is sort of the same idea… Rangers are more flexible in their approach than the 1st ID. Rangers get all the fancy toys they want, and often bend the rules when they need to.

(* Which may exactly be what Oliver Stone is trying to show in that brief sequence with guidance from Robin Lane Fox.)