Printable View
I have a question on the Hypaspists: What are the evidences which shows that these soldiers fought with a short lance?
-When Alexandre assassinates Cleithos, he uses a sarrise seized by the hands of one of its guards, role of the hypaspists.
-Nicanor, at the time of the war against Getai, uses its men to flatten wheat with sarisses. Nicanor is the chief of the hypaspists.
Thank you for your help.:2thumbsup:
Although i can not quote any specific sources i was under the impression that "Hypaspists" were a multi-purpose infantry force trained in wielding the sarissa as well as the typical shorter Greek spear ... however taking into account that the bulk of Makedonian hoplite infantry employed sarissae, hypaspists were used more as flexible, "agressive" hard-hitting heavy infantry with normal spears (in sieges, rough terrain, flankings etc)...
In Fuller's "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" you get the impression they are more like legionaires or heavier Peltasts than Phalangites. That seems to be his interpretation, but it is not a bad one IMO, Alexander and Phillip (who built the army with which his son conquered the world) were not stupid and would have seen the advantage of such troops to supplement the Phalangati, Peltasts and cavalry.
That is not sufficient to me really, because during the battle of Gabiene (- 316) Eumenes puts the Hypaspists at the head of the infantry, follow-up by the Argyraspides and by the foreigners armed as the Macedonian (phalanx). At the time of the fight, Diodorus specifies that Argyraspides were too violent in the charge which the combat began with the swords. I do not understand which is this idea that Hypaspists used a short lance!Quote:
Although i can not quote any specific sources i was under the impression that "Hypaspists" were a multi-purpose infantry force trained in wielding the sarissa as well as the typical shorter Greek spear ... however taking into account that the bulk of Makedonian hoplite infantry employed sarissae, hypaspists were used more as flexible, "agressive" hard-hitting heavy infantry with normal spears (in sieges, rough terrain, flankings etc)...
Note: Argyraspides are the veteran hypaspists of Alexandre at this time.
Pour ceux qui lisent le français, c'est ici que j'ai découvert les incohérences véhiculées par certains ouvrages:
http://www.passion-histoire.net/view...255498#p255498
It's a french forum where I found out the inconsistencies.
Edit:
I think especially that the hypaspists were a very trained troop able to carry out operations more quickly than the pezhetairoi, including in difficult ground. I am not a specialist about the Hellenic army, I start to study it and I would like to check my doubts here because I am sure that there are specialists of the Hellenic army here.Quote:
That seems to be his interpretation, but it is not a bad one IMO, Alexander and Phillip (who built the army with which his son conquered the world) were not stupid and would have seen the advantage of such troops to supplement the Phalangati, Peltasts and cavalry.
So you suggest that we shall swap eachother's name, and give the "Hypaspists" a silvery shields?
No, after the death of Alexandre, the Argyraspides are simply the veteran hypaspists of Alexandre renamed in -327 for their bravery. They are hypaspists with silver shields only. It's only with the Seleucids that the name "Argyraspides" are re-used for the phalangits descendant of Macedonians.
The Argyraspides of Alexandre are different than the Seleucid Argyraspides who appear for the first time at the battle of Raphia (-217).
I simply wish to understand why the hypaspists are imagined armed with a short lance.
Note: the Argyraspides of Alexandre are a title "non-hereditary", the new hypaspists keeps the name hypaspists. During the battle of Gabiene, the Argyraspides are old from 70 to 80 years.
As I wrote in the other topic, the Hellenic elites are not well documented: we have to make due with occasional and sometimes contradictory references rather than full descriptions. My guess is the team decided to create three types of elite units the successors can be expected to have had (an elite phalanx, an elite heavy infantry and an elite mobile infantry unit), and gave these the names that seemed to fit best (argyraspides, the old-fashioned hypaspist and the more modern peltast respectively).
the ideal solution would be if pretty much all macedonian (and helleinstic) standing army infantry units, were capable of fightng with 3 sets of weapons; sarissa+the macedonian shield, javelines+swords+pelta shields, and traditional holite way of aspis+doru+variaty of short swords. thus the infantry could be used in different maners for different purposes (holding a line in field battles in opposition to assults on fortified possitions or flanking actions). however the RTW engine does not support this many weapon/shield combinations so i think the team went and developed these variations in different unit types. to be honest i don't see a better alternative with the current engine availabe. even in MTW2 things are the same.
Exactly. I think that the hypaspists can fight with several weapons, depending of the situation (siege, battlefield, ambusher). A solution it's maybe 3 units of hypaspists, the phalanx type, the hoplitai type used by Alexandre and the peltast type used by the late successors. But it is clear that it is not good to encumber the unit slots available.Quote:
the ideal solution would be if pretty much all macedonian (and helleinstic) standing army infantry units, were capable of fightng with 3 sets of weapons; sarissa+the macedonian shield, javelines+swords+pelta shields, and traditional holite way of aspis+doru+variaty of short swords. thus the infantry could be used in different maners for different purposes (holding a line in field battles in opposition to assults on fortified possitions or flanking actions). however the RTW engine does not support this many weapon/shield combinations so i think the team went and developed these variations in different unit types. to be honest i don't see a better alternative with the current engine availabe. even in MTW2 things are the same.
I think the Hypaspistai did not have set equipment and could fill various roles when needed, we know phalangites were sometimes fitted as light infantry so its probable that the same mixing of roles happened with the Hypaspistai.
We already have that in EB in the form of the Agyraspidai, Hypaspistai and Peltastai Makedonikoi units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genava