>>> Allen, I have a couple of follow-up questions:
OK, it's morning, and I'm on the third cup of coffee, so I have a chance at being coherent.
>>> 1. Hypapsists: This name seems to be used for a lot of things. Do you have a source that explains 'hypapsists' as they are used by Alexander as opposed to the successors. Their roles seem to change, or the word is used very generically by authors/ sources. And how are they different from theurophori, which Aventine makes minis for?
Originally, Philip's and Alexander's hypaspists seem to have been flexible troops (as even the pezhetairoi could be when required), and although their armament has been extensively argued, it seems most likely that they had different armament for different missions.
Alexander went to Asia with three thousand-man chiliarchies; one was the "guard" hypasists, called the Agema.
Ultimately, these elite "guard" hypaspists became the Argyraspides, as described in the Wiki link below, and seem to have been formed exclusively as part of the phalanx from then on--with the title being revived for the same function long after the original holders had ceased to be:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyraspides
What confuses things is that the terms "hypaspists", "Agema", and "Argyraspides" are used in some cases interchangeably, and in some cases for quite different things, when the Successor armies are discussed by both ancient authors and modern writers. As an example, see this Roman Army Talk thread:http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?f ... =entrypage
But for the history of the original Macedonian hypaspists, I think the Wiki summary is agod as any. Follow the citations for the original sources. For the later application of names ("-aspides", "peltasts") see the first two sections here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenisti ... ic_Phalanx
The difference between hypaspists and thureophoroi: the original hypaspists were a particular corps of the Macedonian army, recruited from Macedonians. Thureophoroi were by most accounts a similar multi-role troop type, and seem to have supplanted peltasts as light troops over time (complicated by the *name* Peltastoi showing up applied to heavier troops in Successor armies!) But thureophoroi were generally mercenaries, and could be recruited from pretty much anywhere across the Hellenistic world. See also:http://www.ancientbattles.com/thureopho ... phoroi.htm
Aas a general rule, thureophoroi were not armored, apart from a helmet. Where they were (normally with a mail shirt), they were know as "thorakitai".
The Aventine Successor "later hypaspists" (which are armored) and "thureophoroi" (which are not) are lovely figures. They'd be useful, respectively, as Macedonian hypaspists (I may replace my old Foundry ones with them eventually, especially since Aventine plans to come out with sarissa-armed versions shortly, for the "alternative armament"), and as generic thureophoroi right through to the end of the period.
>>> 2. Colored armor: I see a lot of this in successor armies. Do you know anything about this as it applies to history? Do we have historical examples? Was it widespread, as it seems like it could be expensive?
This is one Jeff could address at length. Yes, there are definitely contemporary paintings which clearly show Macedonian painted armor. At one time, it was argued that what was shown on the "Alexander sarcophagus" was representative: blue represented iron, yellow represented bronze.; this has generally been discounted, as more wall paintings are "discovered" and analyzed. I'd have to dig to see how many Successor examples there are, but I don't see why the practice would not have continued. Persoannly, I don't like the look that well; the way many paint them, they just come across as too garish: chocolate-box Smurfs! I tend to go with good, gritty, somewhat tarnished bronze! But that's just a matter of taste.
>>> As for "deepening of the phalanx", I have read (especially in those newer Osprey books, which I know you admire so...
) that successor armies generally did not have a reserve line of phalanx, that they preferred to deepen the phalanx instead. This point was made in referrence to the Romans having unengaged and fresh maniples to throw in. Thus I plan to have my Pyrrhic army phalanx kind of balanced by the a section of acies triplex.[/quote]
I don't recall that anyone, hoplite or phalangite, commonly formed a second (reserve) line of phalanx. I'm sure I can be corrected.
There's a lovely diagram online showing the "normal" and "dense" versions of the pike phalanx. I wanted to post it when you raised a similar question on the CoE forum, and couldn't find it... and still can't...
Anyway, the premise is that the phalanx (even in the hoplite era) was more flexible than we may often imagine. Ancient authors describe different degrees of density for specific tactical situations. It has been suggested, with good evidence behind it, that rather than making a dense formation by everyone shuffling sideways (if you've ever done military drill, you know how awkward this can be), it was accomplished by "doubling forwards" the rear ranks: for example, in a 16-rank Macedonian phalanx, the last eight ranks would just come up through the gaps between individuals in the first eight, thus halving the number of ranks, but doubling the density (halving the individual frontage) of the formation.
How much this applies to hoplite phalanxes could probbaly be debated forever. But it seems very applicable to the pike phalanx. We see repeated references to a "dense array", and commentators note that this made for an effective defensive formation that was hard to maneuver. So we conclude that a 16-rank phalanx would make for better forward movement and maneuvering, with confortable intervals etween the troops; while a double-density 8-rank array would make a formidable defense to the front, but would be very difficult to maneuver, and would be vulnerable to attack from the flanks.
So I think you have the general idea; but I'd look carefully at references to "deep" formations to see what the original author was actually describing. And of course, this whole line of thought is guaranteed to give ancient wargames rules writers fits...
Hope that helps some.