Hmmm...I disagree with your use of the word 'always'.
Just because a modern map shows them deep doesn't mean they were.
Indeed, according that wikipedia link, they were twice as deep as the pike armed phalanx!
It strikes me as a bit odd that they would be 16 or more ranks deep when they only supposedly had spears.
Still, this is an interesting discussion.
Here are some more sources:-
koryvantesstudies.org/studies-in-english-language/page220-2/ (this is quite detailed)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypaspists www.jstor.org/stable/4435923 books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZUymb61z_DUC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=hypaspists&source=bl&ots=n5W9AfYEBY&sig=ACfU3U2fGGEyHnn_QRqZjQHlyWOT8vN_Iw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtivSsvbf6AhUGacAKHZHvD8wQ6AF6BAhEEAM#v=onepage&q=hypaspists&f=false www.ancienthistorybulletin.org/subscribed-users-area/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/AHBDec2013_15_10.pdf …and there are many others.
The truth is, we don’t know how the Hypaspists were armed, or their exact formation.
No ancient writer bothered to tell us (or this information has been lost over the millennia).
We can only make guesses.
But we do know that later they were re-named
Argyraspids (silver shields) and used pikes.
The only things we do know for certain is how they were used:-
* as a ‘link’ between the pike armed Phalangites and the lance armed Companions.
* for fighting in hindering and difficult terrain, where pikes and lances were at a disadvantage.
* and they were elite troops (some modern scholars envision them as the ‘Old Guard’ of the Macedonian army).
And to quote the first sentence of the Troop Definitions at the top of page 3 of the DBA rules:-
“Troops are defined by battlefield behaviour instead of the usual formation, armour, weapons and morale”.
This very sensible approach, almost unique to DBA, means we don’t have to worry about whether a leather spolas
offers the same protection as chain-mail or a bronze breast-plate, or whether a thrusting spear is superior or inferior
to a cutting sword edge, or who has the longest weapon (!).
How they behaved and performed is what is important…not what figure manufactures place in their hands.
Here are a few examples of this:-
I/13 Shang Chinese, I/16 Hittites, and I/19 Mitanni have ‘spearmen’ who fight as 3Ax or 4Ax, not Spears…
II/47d Batavians & Cherusci Germans have ‘heroes armed with long spears’, but they fight as 4Wb, not Spears…
...and
Phil Barker has many other examples
(mind you, he still insists on the Carthaginian ‘Spearmen’ fighting as Spears;
“look, the figures carry a spear, so they must be spearmen!”. I prefer mine to ‘behave’ as 4Bd, as following the victories at
the River Trebia and Lake Trasimene they were veterans, plus they re-armed themselves with captured Roman equipment).Having Hypaspists as a double-based unit is an interesting approach.
The loss of the first double-base counting as two elements would reflect the importance of such a prestigious unit.
However, the extra +1 for being a double-base only applies in good going, and only against foot, not mounted.
So they’d be highly vulnerable to a Persian Knight attack.
And there is still the problem of Spears and Auxiliaries not pursuing, leaving their mate’s flanks exposed to overlaps.
All-in-all I prefer my elite Hypaspists to
BE elite, and not one of the
weakest elements in Philip's and Alexander's army.
Having them as 3Bd does this…not because they chucked-away their spears, but because that better fits their performance.
