Macedonian Cavalry - Companions, Thracians Thessalians and Prodromoi!

[Imperial Dave]

Just a quick thread re the relative differences between the four types of cavalry mentioned (not including generic Greeks!).

What I am interested in is how much difference would there have been in reality between the four types?

Do people ascribe to a rigid definition or is there fluidity in the assumptions of appearance and armament? I am not talking about battlefield roles although this does come into it. I am really looking into the armour, helmet type, spear length and "uniform" colours of the cavalry.

I know this may sound daft and old ground but I like to mix up my figures in units as much as possible without surrendering historical authenticity hopefully

Therefore my Companions have Boetian helmets, with a few Phrygian/Thracian helmets, long spear and red tunics with lots of dun coloured cloaks!
My Thracians have Thracian helmets (!) mainly but a smartering of others, javelins and a real mix of kit colour wise
The Thessalians have mainly Boetian helmets, long spear and a mix of kit colour wise
Prodromoi have long spears, mainly Phrygian type helmets for some reason and red tunics

Viewed from a distance (assuming all based as medium/heavy cavalry), apart from the dun coloured cloaks of the comapanions they all kind of look similar and merge to my eye

Do people try to really differentiated their Macedonian cavalry to be as distinctive as possible or take the army on campaign approach with kit interchangeability mostly?

Just interested in what others think and indeed do with regards differentiating their different cavalry types

[Mark G]

well the xyston weapon seems a pretty unique thing for the companions and podromoi from the non Macedonian cavalry (I'd class Podromoii as a light cavalry and companions as a heavy - so if you can, bigger horses, and if not, fewer on the bases of the lights.

also, the Macedonians do seem to have used cloak colours and base stripes to differentiate the two from each other.

Thracians would all be Thracian, although the Greek fashion for adopting some Thracian patterns may allow you to give some Thracian style cloak patterns to the Thesalians.

when I last did these guys, I think I just stuck to the xyston packs, actually, but no doubt someone will have AMPW to hand to check there also for you.

I rather like floppy hatted greek cavalry as a differentiation for thessalain (or anyone other than boeoetian)

the order you have listed them is the order of toughness I would try to portray - although I would also think about making the thracians look less organised on my bases too.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Mark, very useful.

I am using about half Xyston figures (and they are very nice!) but with lots of other manufacturers mixed in where appropriate and where sizing looks ok

A question re the Prodromoi. I thought that they might operate the same way as the Hypaspists and double up as both lights and heavies depending on the circumstances or that too fanciful? After all a lance/xyston is more suited to a shock role although I guess they could still accomplish this against lesser cavalry in more "open order"

[Patrick Waterson]

The Prodromoi were certainly used as shock heavy cavalry at Gaugamela, where their charge in a sensitive spot precipitated the rout of the entire Persian left wing (Arrian III.14).  The Paeonians (Thracians) were employed to take the Persian cavalry left head-on (actually flank-on given the relative movement vectors) at Gaugamela and previously had been used with the Royal Ile of Companions and another ile of Companions to see off a marauding force of c.1,000 Persian cavalry (Arrian III.8 ).

On the above basis I would conclude that making Prodromoi and Thracians dual-use (interchangeable light/heavy) is eminently justifiable.

Thessalians are sometimes assumed to be javelin-armed but given that their preferred formation was the rhombus, which is seriously unsuited to javelin tactics, I would suggest these also would have used the xyston, as per the Hollin collection.  We might even assume them to be capable of using both weapon systems, although perhaps not in the same battle.  If they had a supporting 'squirearchy' of slaves/grooms/servants accompanying them on the field (I do not know - just floating the prospect) it becomes much more likely.

The big question is whether the Thracians would have taken up xyston use at some point: I see no reason why not, as they fought in wedge, rubbed shoulders with Macedonians and were not backward on the battlefield.  I would give them the option of re-equipping with xyston, especially given the repeated use of Paeonians in a heavy shock role - in addition to the instances quoted above, at the Granicus it is the Prodromoi, the Paeonians and the Companion ile of the day who have the duty of being the first across the river against the Persians.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Patrick,

I have always assumed the Thessalians (heavies) to be long spear/xyston rather than javelin armed although the one does not proclude use of the other!

Thracians I have as javelin though as you say, rubbing shoulders with the glory boys may have induced them to switch to a longer spear for the close cavalry

re interchangeability, since the Thracians were numerous, would battlefield formation be driven by social status and armour in this period. ie if you had a helmet, a spear and a curass you closed up and if you had javelins you stayed looser?

[Patrick Waterson]

Not too sure: not being an expert on Thracian sociology, I do not now to what extent the better-armoured nobles kept to themselves on the battlefield and to what extent units were a mix of nobles in the front, retainers filling out behind.  The contingents with Alexander were the pick of the best from the best tribes, so they would have been well-equipped throughout and capable of both skirmish and shock.

Thracians by themselves (i.e. with the full mounted tribal force deployed) I would not know about.  Best guess - the most capable scouts would be detached for scout-work, but would rejoin their clan formations for a battle; command considerations would suggest that nobles be spread among the lower orders to some extent, favouring mixed units with the best-armoured at the front/tip but no diferentiation as such between shock and skirmish units - everyone would do either as the situation required.  I must emphasise this is my best guess, without source material to back it up.

[Mark G]

id be reluctant to treat podromoi as interchangeable with companions.

promoted into, sure, they were eventually absorded in as the campaign progressed, but I do think they operated in a light cavalry role - the confusion comes because they have no missile weapon, and therefore do not evade and throw/shoot - but that doesn't therefore make them heavy cavalry, I am afraid (cf the argument on what constitutes skirmishers and my refusal to accept evading as the sole criteria).

similarly, id be even more reluctant to equip my thessalians with xyston. 

You have to accept that there are only two types of long stick on horseback to make that sort of decision.  Pat can dig out the entomology in detail if he wants as to the exact word used to call thessalians javelin armed, but 'javelin' armed heavy cavalry sees perfectly normal to me, so long as you don't expect all javelins to be thin, thrown and useless in melee.

so the reverse applies here - I don't see thessalians as light cavalry, but as standard heavy cavalry - the rhombus makes a great formation to model BTW if you can get the depth into your unit. 

now, if you happen to have a set of rules that allows dual use cavalry (i.e. 'cavalry' or on foot), but in the absence there of, thessalians as heavies and podromoi as lights for me.

and no way would I equip thracians with xyston either - even if they wanted it, i'd not let them have it if I was their nearest neighbour
- and I doubt they would want it, seemingly a very traditionally equipped force, who don't even seem to have taken up armour very much despite decades where the only gainful employment on offer was as a mercenary for some Greek or other.

besides, if you turn everyone into xyston armed heavy cavalry, what's the point?  you might as well be playing 19th century and just changing the coat colours on the same figure.

[Patrick Waterson]

The point to note is that in Alexander's campaigns the Prodromoi and Paeonians are repeatedly singled out as doing heavy cavalry stuff in addition to their scouting.  It is a case of both and rather than either or - they have scouting roles between battles and shock roles within them.

I think the idea of 'light' cavalry in Macedonian armies is a misnomer, at least until mounted archers were added (the intermediate hippakontistai may have been surrogate prodromoi, better fitted for scouting in Middle Eastern environments but brought along whenever Alexander wanted to pursue someone quickly - interestingly Arrian (III.24.1) has them in a taxis rather than a hipparchy).  There were cavalry capable of scouting and perhaps skirmishing, although Alex's preferred method for dealing with enemy cavalry was to go straight at them with as much impetus as he could muster - and it worked!  If there were too many of the enemy, squadrons charged in alternately, giving each other a rest (as with Menidas' mercenary cavalry and Ariston's Paeonians at Gaugamela).

Given this tendency of supposedly light cavalry to pitch in like heavies and alongside heavies, we can conclude that Prodromoi and Thracians (particularly Paeonians) were dual-use, capable of behaving as light or heavy as the need suited them.

besides, if you turn everyone into xyston armed heavy cavalry, what's the point?  you might as well be playing 19th century and just changing the coat colours on the same figure.

The point is that one gets more first-class shock-capable cavalry.  Reversion to javelins always remained an option for specific contingencies - archery and javelin-throwing remained part of a noble's education be he from Thrace, Macedon or Thessaly - but good xyston-armed cavalry are worth their weight in gold on the battlefield as they can not only deal with superior numbers of enemy cavalry but can also break holes in most types of infantry.

Alexander added plenty of cavalry from other sources to his army during his campaigns, but took care to expand his Companions to almost double their former establishment.  By that time the Thessalians had gone home, the Prodromoi and Paeonians are no longer mentioned (but had perhaps been absorbed into the Companions) and the other Thracians were mainly acting as garrisons.  The non-xyston armed part of the cavalry swelled, and the challenge seems to have been maintaining enough xyston-armed types to ensure the cutting edge of the army stayed sharp.

[Imperial Dave]

you could argue the same for the phalangites and hypaspists.....they are sarissa armed until specific battlefield roles (sieges etc) are required.

You could argue that Hypaspists could act as phalangites, hoplites as well as peltasts!

Ooops....off thread for my own thread....!

I have now settled on my painting regime for now for the afore-mentioned cavalry types. All apart from....helmet colours. Painted or unpainted helmets for especially the "regimental" cavalry units?

Thoughts.....?

[Duncan Head]

Thessalian armament is an interesting question. There are some early - 6th-5th century - representations that show a pair of throwing-spears, but others that seem to show a long spear with a long buttspike, certainly a thrusting weapon. Some 4th-century coins show Thessalian cavalry with what look like thrusting-spears held underarm - such as this coin from Pherai. This is of course a little earlier than Alexander, and it is not impossible that - for example - Philip as overlord of Thessaly might have introduced the long Macedonian lance; but I would be inclined to give Thessalian cavalry thrusting-spears a bit shorter than the Macedonians carry. Of course they might have carried javelins as well (like the Athenian Panaitios) or had them available for special requirements. This paper discusses Alexander's Thessalians, though with only a brief discussion of weapons.

Nick Sekunda, in his Alexander's Army Osprey, interprets some figures on the Alexander Sarcophagus as Thessalians - red tunic, purple cloaks with broad white borders - see here. Not completely certain about the interpretation myself, but it's a suggestion.

[Duncan Head]

Thracian cavalry are in one sense similar, in that early vase-paintings usually show a pair of light spears, but the Alexandrovo tomb (360s) shows horsemen with a single thrusting spear, and the Kazanluk tomb (early 3rd?) shows quite a long spear. See, for instance, http://www.iianthropology.org/ChristopherWebber.pdf.

[Duncan Head]

Not to mention, of course, the infamous Thessalian war-flail...

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Duncan much appreciated

fairly convinced of the longer spear for my Thessalians rather than javeline per se. Unfortunately I have based my colour scheme on the afore-mentioned purple cloaks with white border...... is it possible that these (the sarcophagus figures) are indeed not Thessalian but just more Companions?

Well, it doesnt matter, I have painted them thus...unless I get a fit of pique and recolour them blue 

[Duncan Head]

It's possible that they're not Thessalians - on the other hand, it's quite possible that they are, so if you want to, then go with it.

[Imperial Dave]

I guess I will go with the flow on the Thessalians Duncan....

I have managed to unearth my old and venerable copy of AMPW Duncan and it is still a source of great information to me so thanks for that too!