Hypaspist › From Slavery to Freedom: Epictetus' Path » Ancient origins
Articles and Definitions › Contents
- Hypaspist › Ancient History
- From Slavery to Freedom: Epictetus' Path › Antique Origins
Ancient civilizations › Historical and archaeological sites
Hypaspist › Ancient History
Definition and Origins
The hypaspists were a type of infantry soldier who served as a vital part of the Macedonian armies of both Philip II and his son and heir Alexander III, better known to most as Alexander the Great. They became an invaluable piece of an infantry that helped conquer Greece and defeat the Persian forces of Darius III, aiding in the establishment of an empire that stretched from the Peloponnesian peninsula northward through Macedon and Thrace, across the Hellespont into Asia Minor, and southward into Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Although their exact origin and function have been called mysterious, the historian Stephen English in his The Army of Alexander the Great referred to them as being “among the most capable and heavily worked troops in the Macedonian order of battle …” (28).
Although they are credited for their valiant role in the conquest of Asia, many modern historians are unsure on the evolution and exact role of the hypaspists - even their equipment is in question. This confusion was also evident in the writings of early historians who could not agree on something as simple as whether or not they carried the eighteen-foot sarissa of the phalangites, a much shorter double-edged sword (the xiphos ) or a javelin. Most agree, however, that they were hand-picked not only for their speed and endurance but also for their strength and courage. Some claim they served as a select but separate unit of the phalanx, possibly a commando-type light infantry. Most agree that they formed a link between the heavy infantry in the center and the Companion Cavalry and Alexander on the right. Others suggest that they may have served on particular occasions or during specials events as part of a guard (police force), an agema. Their mobility, far better than that of the old pezhetairoi, allowed them to fight on rough terrain, in siege warfare, and in close hand-to-hand combat, in fact, anywhere where the sarissa was useless.
BOTH PHILIP & ALEXANDER BELIEVED IN TRAINING & DISCIPLINE, & THE HYPASPISTS RECEIVED FAR MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.
Another area of dispute is their origin. Most agree that they evolved from the pezhetairoi of Philip II. Philip had totally transformed the Macedonian army when he became king. Both he and his son believed in training and discipline, and the hypaspists received far more than anyone else. However, before anyone could be trained, the Macedonian soldier was given a new look. For protection he wore a Phrygian helmet which allowed for better hearing and visibility. He wore greaves to cover his calves, a molded cuirass that shielded his torso as well as a long, pleated tunic that protected his abdomen and groin.Again, the hypaspists may or may not have been dressed in this manner. It was a question of mobility. The hypaspists may have needed a uniform that allowed for better movement. And, concerning his choice of weapons, the sarissa would have been far too cumbersome. Together with the rigorous training, these new uniforms gave each man a sense of unity and solidarity --- he would no longer be loyal to a particular province or town but loyal only to the king. Whatever their appearance, Philip took a poorly disciplined group of men and turned them into a formidable army. After his father's death, Alexander would fulfill Philip's dream and take this remarkable force into Asia and battle Darius.
Three-thousand hypaspists - three units of one-thousand each - crossed the Hellespont with Alexander. They would be by his side at Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela and against King Porus in India. Like every other soldier, many of them came from the peasantry and so there would be no regional or tribal affiliation and thereby, like all others, they would be loyal only to the king.They initially served under the command of Nicanor, son of Parmenio, from 334 to 330 BCE and later under Neoptolemus.
Map of the Expansion of Macedon
There were three types of hypaspists:
- The royal hypaspists were from an aristocratic background and initially under the command of Hephaestion and later Seleucus, functioning as a bodyguard to the king (some had been royal pages).
- The regular hypaspists.
- The argyraspides who came into existence in 327 BCE and were composed mostly of veterans. The argyraspideswould eventually become the “ silver shields” and fought during the Wars of the Successors. In 318 BCE they joined Eumenes in his battle against Antigonus the One-eyed. Eventually, they surrendered him in exchange for their wives and baggage.
Historians, both ancient and modern, disagree on many facets of the hypaspists. There are conflicting interpretations on their origin. There is even disagreement on their equipment - sarissa or javelin. Were they even dressed the same? And, lastly, there is inconsistent information on their role: were they considered light or heavy troops. Oddly enough, putting aside whatever may cause contention; they all agree that the hypaspists were an integral part of the army of Alexander - an army that crushed the Persian forces of Darius III. There is little dispute on the basics - they were well-trained, stationed between the heavy infantry of the phalanx and the Companion Cavalry, and fought on rough terrain and in hand-to-hand combat.Whether or not historians agree, the hypaspist was a unique soldier, specially trained and invaluable to the king.
From Slavery to Freedom: Epictetus' Path › Antique Origins
Ancient Civilizations
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus (c. 50- 130 CE) following the example of Socrates, wrote none of his teachings down, preferring to impart his wisdom to his students through class discussions. His student Arrian collected and edited the lectures and discussions he attended in eight books, of which four remain extant, and distilled his master's thoughts in the Enchiridion(`Handbook'). That philosophy was a way of living, not merely an academic discipline, is apparent throughout the Enchiridionand is expanded upon in his other work, the Discourses. Though born a slave, Epictetus gained his freedom and taught both in Rome and Greece. He learned Stoic philosophy first from his master and developed the fundamental ideas into a philosophy which he felt could liberate one from the slavery of circumstance.
Epictetus
Epictetus' focus was on the responsibility of the individual to live the best life possible through self-control and a recognition of a force in the universe he called the logos. He insisted that human beings do have freedom of choice in all matters even though that choice may be limited by the natural operation of this logos. The logos ( Greek for `word' but also with a wider meaning of `to convey thought') was an eternal force which moved through all things and all people, which created and guided the operation of the universe and which had always existed. In many English translations of Epictetus' works logos is often given as God. As Hays writes, “ Logos operates both in individuals and in the universe as a whole. In individuals it is the faculty of reason. On a cosmic level it is the rational principle that governs the organization of the universe. In this sense it is synonymous with “nature”, “Providence” or “God”(when the author of John's Gospel tells us that `the Word' – logos –was with God and is to be identified with God, he is borrowing Stoic terminology”(xix). This logos, then, came to be synonymous with the monotheistic Judeo-Christian understanding of God but the seemingly `mysterious' workings of the Universal Mind were not considered by Epictetus to be mysterious at all. The logos was the natural, ever-present, force of life which could be apprehended and understood through reason, not through faith in underlying and unseen good intentions of a benevolent deity.
Because of the natural operation of this logos the individual was limited in choice (one could not `choose' to defy the immutable laws of existence) but still had the power over how to interpret external circumstance and how to respond to it. As the Enchiridion puts it,
Men are disturbed not by the things which happen, but by the opinions about the things: for example, death is nothing terrible, for if it were it would have seemed so to Socrates; for the opinion about death, that it is terrible, is the terrible thing.
How one chooses to interpret external circumstances, not the circumstances themselves, leads one to enjoy a good life or suffer from a bad one. The immense power, and responsibility, of personal choice and freewill was at the heart of the Stoicism of Epictetus while he simultaneously acknowledged that there was much in life which was simply beyond one's control. As Hays has it, “the Stoics [defined] free will as a voluntary accomodation to what is in any case inevitable. According to this theory, man is like a dog tied to a moving wagon. If the dog refuses to run along with the wagon he will be dragged by it, yet the choice remains his: to run or be dragged. In the same way, humans are responsible for their choices and actions, even though these have been anticipated by the logos and form part of its plan”(xix-xx). While it may be tempting for a modern reader to interpret this `plan' as synonymous with a present day religious understanding of `God's Plan' which must be accepted on faith (not necessarily understood) that was not Epictetus' meaning.
EPICTETUS CLAIMS THAT THE PATH TO FREEDOM FROM SUFFERING IS BY ACCEPTING THE NATURAL ORDER OF LIFE AND WITH IT THE POSSIBILITY OF UNPLEASANT CIRCUMSTANCES.
The `plan' of the logos was the rational, natural, maintenance of the world which includes, for human beings, aging, sickness, disappointment, and death. These things, which humans define as `bad' or `tragic', are, to the logos, simply a part of the human experience. The logos is not sending `trials' or `tests' to people nor, according to Epictetus, are any of the aspects of human life which are regarded as negative anything other than natural and normal. Because of the biological make up of a human being, that organism will be subject to age, sickness and death and, because of the psychological make up, a human will experience disappointment when expectations are not met. An important aspect of the foundation of Stoicism is Heraclitus' claim that "Life is Flux", everything is always changing, and so the disappointment one experiences today cannot last into tomorrow unless the person who has been disappointed chooses to make that so. Human beings create their own realities when they lose sight of the rational workings of the logos. Epictetus claims that the path to freedom from suffering is by accepting the natural order of life and recognizing that, things being as they are, humans will often experience circumstances they will find unpleasant. Acceptance of the human condition, then, is the first step toward liberating oneself from the expectation that life should be any different than what it must, of necessity, be according to the operation of the logos. The second step in liberation is self-control regarding impressions and interpretations we make on a daily basis.
Our lives may be subject to constant change but we are ultimately responsible for how we interpret and respond to those changes. By accepting responsibility for the way we view the world, and how that view affects our behavior in the world, we free ourselves from external circumstances to become our own masters and no longer slaves to time and chance.
LICENSE:
Article based on information obtained from these sources:with permission from the Website Ancient History Encyclopedia
Content is available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. CC-BY-NC-SA License