Talk:Companion cavalry

clean up and expansion

I really want to make this a solid article, but it seems that I am the only one who really shows up. I already added the Greek spelling of Hetairoi and if someone could verify it that would be excellent.--Carriensol

Edit - corrected the Greek accent marks.--Carriensol

I'm happy to see somebody interested in the argument. But there's a problem, with the conception of the article; the Hetairoi, weren't only the elite cavalry, but also the elite units of the phalanx. Maybe the article should be renamed Hetairoi. Also, some sources must be added to buck up the statements.--Aldux 20:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the elite units of the phalanx or elite infantry in general were the Hypaspistai, while the Hetairoi refered to only cavalry. Unfortunately, I haven't done much yet with the article other than add the Greek.--Carriensol

So Phillip II posthumously enlarged the companions? Interesting...

Nudas veritas 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Companions were not purely a military unit, but a name for the Macedonian nobility who were expected to follow and counsel the king, hence the name. Fornadan (t) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

I decided to reorganize the text so it was no longer just one long block of text, I don't like the Title "Tactics and use" but otherwise I think the article is easier to approach like this. We could really use some more textual support however. SADADS (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You should be more specific about what you write about Theopompus' writings. Theopompus' works do not survive, so I guess your source found this info as a reference to Theopompus in another historian's work. It would be grand if you provided that source too, as well as full details of Sage's work (at least the name of the book). And where you write about "the 340's" you should be a little bit more formal.

Thx

GK1973 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the reference section it's their. And the phrasing is mostly because of what information is available, if you have a better reference go ahead and fix it. SADADS (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right... thx, I didn't see it there! I will rephrase GK1973 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Diadochoi

Actually, the Diadochoi are only the generals of Alexander. Their successors are called Epigonoi. The armies of the Diadochoi were the same Alexander had. It was in the time of the Epigonoi that changes were made. It is a mistake often made in articles that have to do with the Hellenistic times. GK1973 (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My Bad, the Diadochi page is a redirection from the Epigonoi site, since you seems to have some insight into this why don't you make this clear in Diadochi or create another page with the successor states that connects to main pages such as Diadochi, Selucid Empire, Ptolemic Empire etc. SADADS (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

yep.. I will later in the month. Thx! Keep working on these articles. We need editors with willingness to improve these kinds of articles!

GK1973 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you make sure I find out about it, I am taking a Greek History Class right now and might be able to help with the polishing.SADADS (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK! GK1973 (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammond

A major source for this article as cited in the footnoes is "Hammond," but no further bibliographical info is given. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry was working on it last night, got sidetracked and forgot to add it.SADADS (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Composition

You should reconsider this section. The very title is misleading. Do not forget that the Hetairoi (Companions) are not just the specific cavalry unit of Philip and Alexander. We could include a section on the history of the Companions and there we could mention the names (regions of origin) of their squadrons under Alexander, as well as names of individual Companions. GK1973 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Arrian and Diodorus

Diodorus Siculus and Arrian are cited to support the rating of the Companions as the best cavalry in the ancient world. I'm not interested in disputing the claim, but this is insufficient citation to verify the sources. I've looked through Arrian's Tactical Handbook, which seems like a logical place since it deals so much with cavalry, and can't find the claim there, though he does discuss Philip and Macedonian cavalry. But maybe it's from his work on Alexander? And Diodorus has too much related history to try to skim through. If a secondary source simply stated that the two ancient authors said this, the secondary work should also be cited here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, we have to keep in mind that the Companion is not a cavalry of a specific armament and equipment but an elite squardon. It is wrong to assume that the Companion cavalry is a single entity. Alexander's Companions were indeed the best cavalry force of their days (look up Alexander's Anabasis, since in the times of Arrian there were of course no Companion regiments, although I doubt that there will be such a claim there) but in later years they were just household cavalry squadrons of varying equipment. It is their comparison to the heaviest of the Persian squadrons that makes us claim that they were superior to any contemporary cavalry type, and maybe the first pure shock cavalry. I will look into the sources, yet it will be much easier and of course better to quote modern positions on this issue (it is a comparison question after all), of which there are aplenty. GK1973 (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of those claims were remnants left over from the Article before I began editing it. I have been trying to explore all of the scholarly sources for the Companions that I can get access to, but my concentration in history is more Early Modern Britain. I like this article, because it is a really interesting topic, but I am really no expert in classical warfare. Anything that is uncited or cited by the ancient authors is not standard Wikipedia style and should be removed if it seems to contradict with someone else's understanding of the text.

On the equipment point, every source I haver read so far talks about standardized styles of equipment during the Phillip and Alexander periods. I haven't even looked for background on the "Legacy" section, so again, I trust your judgement. Hope that helps, SADADS (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's probably some hyperbole from Arrian's Alexander; but, as pointed out, the claim is largely meaningless, and sources from before the Sassanid and Byzantine heavy cavalry cannot substantiate it, such as it is.

More seriously, the article does not mention stirrups.

The claim to be the first shock cavalry is doubly nonsense; on the one hand, the shock of Thessalian cavalry was proverbial in Socrates' time, before Alexander was born; on the other hand, no cavalry of the fourth century BC was equipped to deliver a cavalry charge in our sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand, Diodorus Siculus made the assertion that the Companion Cavalry was the best in the ancient world here : Diod. 17.21.4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.113.71 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

One standard source not cited here is Gaebel, Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, limited preview online, Companions passim. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would the article mention stirrups? Most current scholars hold that the west didn't use stirrups until the Avars introduced the things; other saddle technolgies served similar roles, but again, the Companions probably didn't have those technologies either. 71.191.229.110 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Thessalian cavalry was not and is not regarded as a shock force. Their equipment included javelins and they deployed in rhombus which is clearly described by all ancient tacticians as a formation facilitating movement and flexibility. GK1973 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't most shock cavalry used javelins as well as other weapons? I think this sort of claim depends on clear ancient comparisons - modern ones might be speculative, so it would be best to have both ancient and modern sources here - saying that the Macedonian cavalry fought differently from the Thessalian. 71.191.229.110 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Armor?

Right now the article states that both riders and horses were armored. I'm not an expert on the Macedonian army, but most of what I've read implied that they were unarmored or at most lightly armored, and that they were effective despite this lack of armor. So it would be very helpful to have citations for the armor claims and possibly also contrary views. In the Alexander Mosaic, shown by the artcle, Alexander seems to wear cloth armor, and his horse has no head-armor, although it's impossible to tell if his horse has other armor. 71.191.229.110 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little research on the topic of the so called "linothorax" which Alexander is portrayed wearing in the fresco image. There are no reliable records of Alexander (or his troops) having ever used/worn them; at least none that are contemporaneous with Alexander's lifetime. There are broad assumptions that he may have worn such based on only two data points: 1) the fresco which is Roman in origin and post-dates Alexander by hundreds of years and 2) a reference to Alexander's "Linothorax" by a Greek historian/philosopher which is (again) written well after Alexander's death and NOT a first hand account. Every other reference about Alexander's "Linothorax" stems from these original two (and quite dodgy) references. At best we might assume Alexander wore a Ceremonial set of armour fashioned after the likeness of the linen armour worm by certain tribes that he and his forces had conquered. Having been to Vergina and seen Philip II of Mecedon's tomb and armour, I think it's unlikely his son would have downgraded to linen armour given that his fathers armour was VERY hefty iron plate. 142.116.97.142 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mycenaean

Why no reference to the Mycenaean e-qe-ta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.133.173 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Armor? II

i am pretty sure they did have armor. but with the horses they had very little. since the companions were drafted from the higher classes of macedonian people they could afford better equipment such as armor. perhaps when you are preferring to a lighter cav. you mean the macedonian prodromoi. Also when you talk of alexander wearinging cloth armor that armor is more like a leather weave. and is said to have the ability to stop a spear thrust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.105.135.186 (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hetaroi or Hetairoi?

I think this page should show up on redirect (or at least on the list of links) if someone types 'hetaroi' instead of 'hetairoi'. It's very easy to make the mistake of mispelling and then assuming this article doesn't exist. 174.7.47.251 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)