"Depicting Hypaspists" Topic

I'd like to paint up a unit of Hypaspists but I am still undecided about how to depict them on a base. I had always thoughts of them as a kind of medium infantry unit that linked the phalanx with the cavalry. Now I am not so sure and wonder if I shouldn't depict them as a typical hoplite unit (I am definitely leaning to the long spear/hoplon combination.) Any thoughts?

My understanding is that they were basically auxilia.

Depends on which army they are for. My understanding is that Alexander's hypaspists were pike (sarissa) armed, but could also be used for special missions when they were armed with a shorter spear (possibly half a pike ?) A shorter spear would also be better for guard duties.

Later on their roles could change, to pike only.

It is probably safe to say that there is no clear consensus on how the Hypaspists were armed!

For special missions they were probably armed with javelins and a short spear.

There is a school of thought based on the Alexander Sarcophagus that they were equipped as light hoplites, essentially in the "link role", but whether the sarcophagus image even represents a hypaspist is uncertain.

There is the suggestion that in India they were re-equipped with the sarrissa and shields faced in silver, essentially as elite phalangites.

You pays your money and you takes your choice….

Most likely they could fight however they were needed. They were elite troops after all. So, in bad terrain they seemed to be able to lighten up and fight against other light troops. On the battle field they seem to have been able to fight both with the Phalanx and separate if needed.

I would paint two units one as medium troops and one as pikemen.

Joe Collins

I would paint two units one as medium troops and one as pikemen.

That was what I was afraid of but I think you are probably correct in needing two variations of the Hypaspists. I'd still go with a more Hoplite version for the heavies and then something a kin of medium infantry and more spread out on the stand.

I think I did mine with silver shields and equipped as hoplites! I can actually remember, I'd have to look in the box of Macedonians.

I've never understood the argument that they lighter troops or like Hoplite. Why when you've developed battle-winning pike-armed infantry do your elite troops fight in the old-fashioned way? I lean towards the idea they may have carried larger shields like the evidence in the later Hellenistic period for two types of shield used by pike.
They could of course fight equipped differently if required e.g., in mountainous terrain, as could the othe phalanx battalions.
So for me it's pike every time.

How do pikes conduct a siege? That makes no sense. Must be a bad translation.

Hypaspists "supposedly" fought…oh forget it.

You know there is just a ludicrous amount of supposition based on barely operable fact.

Do what looks right, if you ask me.

The reality was probably something like, " that mob over there with the better footwear and hats are my hypaspists."

"So, what do they do?"

"I..er..well, they look cool running next to my horses and those Foot Companions over there."

"And what is the difference between…."

"Have you see my Alexandria-of-the-North-by-Southwest? It will be my best Alexandria yet!"

Do what looks right, if you ask me.

Well yes and no. What does "looks right" even mean. We try our best to get it is as accurate as possible but then we come up, as you say, against the limits of our knowledge. I agree that there us no absolute right or wrong on this but there are some parameters that limit our choices. I am curious about how other people have depicted their Hypaspists and why they choice to do it that way.

It is an interesting question, but does it make actual sense? In the modern period what would be the answer if someone asked "How were grenadiers equipped?" Soldiers with this name have served in many armies for some 300+ years, but few had any real connection to grenades. I believe the Macedonian and Successor Kingdoms survived for nearly 300 years, and units called hypaspists served under many of them. Was it, for much of this period, and many of these armies, simply an indication of elite status, rather than an indication of equipment or role in battle? This is a genuine question, and I do not pretend to know the answer!