The Macedonian double whammy

[Justin Swanton]

Rereading Chaeronea, Issus and Gaugamela, is it possible that the Macedonian army tried a cavalry-infantry combination to crack the enemy left flank and punch through it? Specifically:

1. At Chaeronea Alexander leads the charge against the Sacred Band on horseback, and punches through them along with his friends:

Likewise he, the first of a number of good men who fought with him, broke through the continuity of the enemy's battleline, and striking them down, he crushed the numbers of those drawn up in order near him. His comrades with him achieving the same thing, the continuity of the battleline kept being broken. - Diodorus: 16.86

This is very different from the phalanx vs hoplite action on the other flank:

Then the king also in person advanced, well in front and not conceding credit for the victory even to Alexander; he first forced back the troops stationed before him and then by compelling them to flee became the man responsible for the victory. - Ibid.

After the battle Philip marvels at the dead Sacred Band whose wounds from sarissas are all in front. One can argue that the sarissas were carried by Alexander's cavalry, (maybe the sarissaphoroi) but another explanation is possible, namely that Alex and the cavalry deployed in front of the Macedonian phalanx's left wing and then punched through the Sacred Band, followed by the phalanx that finished them off.

2. At Issus Alexander leads the charge against the Persian Kardakes followed by the phalanx:

He set the cavalry along the front of the whole army, and ordered the infantry phalanx to remain in reserve behind it. He himself advanced at the head of the right wing to the encounter, having with him the best of the mounted troops. – Diodorus Siculus, Library: 17.33.

At first he still led them on in close array with measured step, although he had the forces of Darius already in full view, lest by a more hasty march any part of the phalanx should fluctuate from the line and get separated from the rest. But when they came within range of darts, Alexander himself and those around him being posted on the right wing, advanced first into the river with a run. – Anabasis: 2.10.

For the Macedonian phalanx had been broken and disjoined towards the right wing; because Alexander had charged into the river with eagerness, and engaging in a hand-to-hand conflict was already driving back the Persians posted there – Ibid.

3. The same arrangement at Gaugamela:

Alexander wheeled round towards the gap, and forming a wedge as it were of the Companion cavalry and of the part of the phalanx which was posted here, he led them with a quick charge and loud battle-cry straight towards Darius himself. – Anabasis: 3.14.

This wouldn't be the first use of cavalry to soften up enemy infantry by charging through them followed by a decisive attack by friendly infantry, as we have seen a couple of examples of Republican Roman cavalry doing just that.

Is this reconstruction plausible? Any way of recreating it on the wargaming table?

[nikgaukroger]

1. At Chaeronea Alexander leads the charge against the Sacred Band on horseback, and punches through them along with his friends:

I recall Adrian Goldsworthy writing recently that there is no actual evidence about which troops Alexander led at the battle and whether they were mounted or foot, and that he was leading the Companions is an assumption based on his later activity after he became king (and has no doubt become wargamer fact). It may have been in his book on Philip & Alexander - he also has some interesting comments on Issos IIRC.

[Erpingham]

1. At Chaeronea Alexander leads the charge against the Sacred Band on horseback, and punches through them along with his friends:

I recall Adrian Goldsworthy writing recently that there is no actual evidence about which troops Alexander led at the battle and whether they were mounted or foot, and that he was leading the Companions is an assumption based on his later activity after he became king (and has no doubt become wargamer fact). It may have been in his book on Philip & Alexander - he also has some interesting comments on Issos IIRC.

I recall a similar point being made by Duncan Head in the original KTB farrago.

[RichT]

Adrian Goldsworthy no doubt says that, because it is true. A number of us have said the same thing on this forum, numerous times.

Everyone else who has ever examined Issus and Gaugamela has the Companions to the right of the phalanx, not in front of it.

When trying to establish a new interpretation it's more effective to acknowledge the existing consensus than to ignore it. Continued repetition of a theory without addressing the counter arguments is more likely to irritate than to persuade.

[Justin Swanton]

1. At Chaeronea Alexander leads the charge against the Sacred Band on horseback, and punches through them along with his friends:

I recall Adrian Goldsworthy writing recently that there is no actual evidence about which troops Alexander led at the battle and whether they were mounted or foot, and that he was leading the Companions is an assumption based on his later activity after he became king (and has no doubt become wargamer fact). It may have been in his book on Philip & Alexander - he also has some interesting comments on Issos IIRC.

I recall a similar point being made by Duncan Head in the original KTB farrago.

This is not an attempt to resurrect KTB, promise! What I'm looking at is an explanation for Chaeronea that accords with Macedonian tactics at Issus and Gaugamela, both of which seem quite clear: Alex leads the Companions and is followed by the phalanx ,and it works. Or are we still at the point where cavalry never, ever charge infantry?

[Justin Swanton]

Everyone else who has ever examined Issus and Gaugamela has the Companions to the right of the phalanx, not in front of it.

He set the cavalry along the front of the whole army, and ordered the infantry phalanx to remain in reserve behind it. He himself advanced at the head of the right wing to the encounter, having with him the best of the mounted troops. – Diodorus Siculus, Library: 17.33.

How does the consensus explain that?

[Erpingham]

Or are we still at the point where cavalry never, ever charge infantry?

As we have shed loads of evidence to the contrary, I don't think we were ever there.  I think we are still thinking that cavalry don't charge formed elite infantry with impunity, though.

[RichT]

He set the cavalry along the front of the whole army, and ordered the infantry phalanx to remain in reserve behind it. He himself advanced at the head of the right wing to the encounter, having with him the best of the mounted troops.[/i] – Diodorus Siculus, Library: 17.33.

How does the consensus explain that?

By reading Arrian. As you know full well.

What I'm looking at is an explanation for Chaeronea that accords with Macedonian tactics at Issus and Gaugamela

It appears you want an explanation of Chaeronea that has the same tactics as Issus and Gaugamela. That seems unlikely to me, because at Chaeronea the army was different (core Macedonian army without allies), the opponents were different (Greek hoplites, not Persians), the commanders were different (Philip, not Alexander), the terrain was different (plain bounded by hills, not river crossing or open plain), and what little we know about the tactics were different (attacks on both left and right, not decisive attack on right).

Alex leads the Companions and is followed by the phalanx ,and it works.

Depends what you mean by 'is followed by'.

Or are we still at the point where cavalry never, ever charge infantry?

We have never, ever been at that point. Everyone is quite happy that cavalry could and did successfully charge infantry.

[Imperial Dave]

I recall a similar point being made by Duncan Head in the original KTB farrago.

I'm with Joseph Conrad on this one.....

[Justin Swanton]

As we have shed loads of evidence to the contrary, I don't think we were ever there.  I think we are still thinking that cavalry don't charge formed elite infantry with impunity, though.

We have never, ever been at that point. Everyone is quite happy that cavalry could and did successfully charge infantry.

Good. I was getting worried there for a second. 

So putting aside any rehash of the mechanics of KTB, one can accept as feasible that Companion cavalry could get through enemy infantry as Roman cavalry did.

By reading Arrian. As you know full well.

I quoted him. What the cavalry-phalanx combo does is reconcile him with Diodorus. If Alexander leads the phalanx "with measured step" but in front of them, on horseback, with the rest of the Companions, then Diodorus makes perfect sense. In any case why would Alex takes pains to avoid "a more hasty march [lest] any part of the phalanx should fluctuate from the line and get separated from the rest" if he is part of the phalanx? A phalanx advances as a single entity, at one speed. But if Alex is on a horse he might be tempted to go a little faster, which would oblige the phalangites behind him to pick up the pace and get separated from the rest of the phalanx. He has to keep his cavalry moving at a slower pace than normal to accommodate the speed of the phalanx. Everything fits. I like it when everything fits.   (yeah, yeah, I know: "Everything fits for you...")

[Erpingham]

one can accept as feasible that Companion cavalry could get through enemy infantry as Roman cavalry did.

I don't think there was an issue with this.  The issue was more under what circumstances (disordered, open order, poor quality?) rather than the absolute possibility.  Thankfully, having abandoned ktb wedges, we don't have to go to silly extremes.

[Jim Webster]

1. At Chaeronea Alexander leads the charge against the Sacred Band on horseback, and punches through them along with his friends:

I recall Adrian Goldsworthy writing recently that there is no actual evidence about which troops Alexander led at the battle and whether they were mounted or foot, and that he was leading the Companions is an assumption based on his later activity after he became king (and has no doubt become wargamer fact). It may have been in his book on Philip & Alexander - he also has some interesting comments on Issos IIRC.

I recall a similar point being made by Duncan Head in the original KTB farrago.

This is not an attempt to resurrect KTB, promise! What I'm looking at is an explanation for Chaeronea that accords with Macedonian tactics at Issus and Gaugamela, both of which seem quite clear: Alex leads the Companions and is followed by the phalanx ,and it works. Or are we still at the point where cavalry never, ever charge infantry?

This is circular reasoning. We have no evidence at Chaeronea for Alexander leading the Companion cavalry.
And whilst the phalanx advance with the cavalry, they advance alongside the cavalry they do not advance behind it
And nobody said (that I can recall) cavalry never ever charge infantry. Indeed I could quote several examples, most failures
What some people disputed was that infantry stood in mathematically defined files and let cavalry knock them down like ninepins. And every Greek general was too stupid to realise that actually you could defeat cavalry by offsetting files when facing cavalry

[RichT]

[omitted stuff] A phalanx advances as a single entity, at one speed [more omitted stuff]

Er, well. OK. Sometimes these discussions have rather the feel of discussing quantum physics with a kitten.

[Imperial Dave]

endless tail chasing and an obsession with fish?

[Erpingham]

[omitted stuff] A phalanx advances as a single entity, at one speed [more omitted stuff]

Er, well. OK. Sometimes these discussions have rather the feel of discussing quantum physics with a kitten.

Moderatorial guidance - Play the ball, not the man - no ad hominem arguments.