Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Justin Swanton]

Fiddling around a bit, I think there might just be a way of doing 'line relief' in a cavalry wedge whilst it is pushing its way through an infantry line.

Here is a wedge about to charge into infantry. There are no horsemen behind the leading rider, and the distance between one file and the next is 6' - a little more for the central corridor.

Heading for the gap between two files, the leadsman takes out the infantryman to his right whilst the two horsemen nearest him take out the infantryman on either side.

The leadsman advances between the files, pushing aside or bowling over the next two infantrymen, who are taken out by fresh horsemen whilst the two previous ones retire through the central corridor. Each cavalryman is presumed to use his lance only once.

The process continues, fresh horsemen advancing to clear the way for the leadsman whilst horsemen of other files widen the breach.

Finally the infantry line is breached. Notice that this will work provided there are enough horsemen in the central files to take up the slack. Which means a lozenge formation would probably work better.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think we need to agree to disagree on Hellenistic art.  I claim no great knowledge but what I do know seems to suggest idealisation of the human form was standard, for example.  Portraiture of Alexander was very stylized, IIRC.  We are, I think, very short of extant examples of Hellenistic painting, certainly on the scale of the Alexander mosaic.  So it is OK to suggest that the artist had in front of him a description of this exact event in detail (an account now lost to us - art historians seem to debate which battle this is, let alone be able to point to an exact description of the incident depicted) but it is speculation.  Personally, I see a very fine composition rather than a detailed history lesson.  Unless we think Alexander did fight bareheaded, there is one concession to style in his image, so why not more?

Well, we can agree to disagree but the Alexander Mosaic has the dead tree that was a feature of Gaugamela, a shadow of the chariot wheel on the chariot body that enables us to determine the approximate orientation of the battlefield and representations of weaponry, costume and armour that show much attention to detail.  I do not think the artist would bother inventing details that were well known to living witnesses, most of whom were influential people.

Where I would agree is that the picture extracts the maximum drama from a known setting - the artist has done his best to set the elements for best visual impact within the constraints of what actually happened - so a fine composition, yes, but of a detailed historical event.  I remember an Ancmed discussion in which Duncan, who had observed the picture more closely than myself, pointed out numerous details that demonstrated that, for example, the Greek hoplite casualties in the picture were equipped in standard and not Iphicratic hoplite fashion.  These details, moreover, are consistent, and consistency suggests care.

None of our sources mention Alexander losing his helmet in the battle, though this does not necessarily mean that it was not lost.  Exactly how he would have managed to lose it might be a puzzle.

[Jim Webster]

I'd suggest the following problems

1) You are walking excited horses backwards whilst all around them equally excited horses are going forwards. Either that or you're turning them in a very tight turning circle which means they present their unshielded and unprotected flank to the infantry.
2) You are assuming that each horseman can virtually automatically take out an infantryman. If the kill rate is that reliable, why bother with the wedge.
3) If you look at your diagram the second horseman on the left hand edge of the wedge always has a live infantryman with nothing to do save strike sideways and 'safely' disembowel the horse
4) As far as I remember all our drill manuals etc talk about everybody being in files, none talk about the leader NOT being in a file (although it is of course possible that if it was obvious that is what happened, they might not bother mentioning it. Ancient authors were beggars for that :-(   )

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

I'd suggest the following problems

1) You are walking excited horses backwards whilst all around them equally excited horses are going forwards. Either that or you're turning them in a very tight turning circle which means they present their unshielded and unprotected flank to the infantry.
2) You are assuming that each horseman can virtually automatically take out an infantryman. If the kill rate is that reliable, why bother with the wedge.
3) If you look at your diagram the second horseman on the left hand edge of the wedge always has a live infantryman with nothing to do save strike sideways and 'safely' disembowel the horse
4) As far as I remember all our drill manuals etc talk about everybody being in files, none talk about the leader NOT being in a file (although it is of course possible that if it was obvious that is what happened, they might not bother mentioning it. Ancient authors were beggars for that :-(   )

Jim

Let's see if I can answer them.

1. The retiring horses turn in a tight circle. Six feet is enough. The nearby infantry have either been knocked off their feet or are too preoccupied by horsemen directly in front of them to interfere.

2. The wedge enables the horsemen to focus on a narrow part of the line. Otherwise it's one file of horsemen per 2 files of infantry and they will not get through. Not every black circle is necessarily a kill - they could be a wounded or a knocked down and concussed infantryman, in any case hors de combat for the present.

3. The horsemen are in constant movement all the time. It is only if they stopped that they would become a vulnerable target for infantry.

4. I needed a clear central corridor to enable 2 files to retire simultaneously. Hypothetically it works and doesn't leave a file behind the leadsman with nothing to do.

[Jim Webster]

My personal (but not excessive) experience of horses is that you turn them tight they are effectively standing still. The other problem is the risk of a traffic jam as two horsemen try and turn at the same time and then the third and fourth turn as the first two as still getting out of each other's way

What you're describing does sound like a caracole with spears rather than pistols, but I cannot think of any ancient author describing anything like it.

Jim

[Erpingham]

Do we have evidence for such a complex evolution in contact with the enemy in any cavalry manual?  It seems extremely complicated even to do on a drill square.  A simpler form would flatten the wedge on impact, leaving essentially a semicircle of cavalry in contact with the enemy.  If successful, the cavalry have intruded a few men into the infantry formation and there is a solid mass behind the point of impact to continue to exploit into the gap.  Meanwhile, the outer angles of the wedge form a protective "shoulder" to the penetration, to prevent ranks on either side of the penetration from interfering from the flanks.  The leaders thrash around making space and carving a wider and deeper wound in the infantry formation, with men from the later ranks behind the centre filling the gap.

[Erpingham]

None of our sources mention Alexander losing his helmet in the battle, though this does not necessarily mean that it was not lost.  Exactly how he would have managed to lose it might be a puzzle.

As I said, lets leave it there, as we have different views of the precision with which we can read the scene.  As an aside though, Alexander is usually shown as blond or with light red hair, based on literary descriptions.  If, as the consensus seems to be, that the original painting was done a few years after Alexander's death this must be one of the earliest coloured images of Alexander to survive.  He has black hair. 

[Patrick Waterson]

None of our sources mention Alexander losing his helmet in the battle, though this does not necessarily mean that it was not lost.  Exactly how he would have managed to lose it might be a puzzle.

As I said, lets leave it there, as we have different views of the precision with which we can read the scene.  As an aside though, Alexander is usually shown as blond or with light red hair, based on literary descriptions.  If, as the consensus seems to be, that the original painting was done a few years after Alexander's death this must be one of the earliest coloured images of Alexander to survive.  He has black hair. 

Are you sure?  It looks light brown to me.  Have another look, now that we are letting the matter rest.  (Click on the pic to magnify.)

On the subject of the wedge evolutions in combat, my own feeling is that it would work best as an integral moving whole, though the idea that sub-evolutions might occur within it is an interesting one.

[Erpingham]

Are you sure?  It looks light brown to me.  Have another look, now that we are letting the matter rest.  (Click on the pic to magnify.)

My mistake, it is certainly brown, though it looks similar in tone to the Persians around him, so quite dark.  Still doesn't match the descriptions.  Is there any relevant colour on the Alexander sarcophagus (since you've written an article on it?).

[Justin Swanton]

Thinking about it, the idea of line relief in a wedge is unworkable for the simple reason that there is no time. A horse walks at about 3-4 mph. It trots at about 8-10 mph, canters at about 10-17 mph and gallops at about 30 mph. Presuming that a trot is the slowest pace a wedge will move at when contacting enemy, that means the leading horseman will be through a 10-deep infantry line in 3 seconds (work on 12 km/h. That's 12 000 m/h = 3.33 m/second. A ten-rank infantry line is about 10m deep). No time for any fancy manoeuvring at all.

Which leads to another suggestion. This assumes the wedge consists of files 6' apart, and faces an infantry line with files 3' apart. Each file of the wedge heads for the spot between 2 infantry files. Each file leader does not sink his lance in the first infantryman, but uses it to make the infantry flinch, raising shields, ducking, whatever, which momentarily stops them reacting effectively, only using his lance to hit the last rank or, in the case of Alexander, go for a juicier target beyond.

As the cavalry advance between the infantry files, they knock the men left and right into narrow corridors, unbalancing them and making them targets for the following horsemen who take them out. By the time the wedge emerges from the infantry line, half or more of the infantry have been killed or incapacitated and the remainder are in total disarray.

In the images below each cavalryman is assumed to target a footman once with his lance. This doesn't take into account the damage he could subsequently do with his sword. The entire sequence happens in about 6 seconds.

[Jim Webster]

One minor problem is that we have virtually no evidence for hoplites being ridden down by cavalry.

I'm not talking about cases where this is presumed to have happened, I'm talking about cases where a historical author mentions that horsemen broke through hoplites from the front.

Jim

[Erpingham]

Thinking about it, the idea of line relief in a wedge is unworkable for the simple reason that there is no time. A horse walks at about 3-4 mph. It trots at about 8-10 mph, canters at about 10-17 mph and gallops at about 30 mph. Presuming that a trot is the slowest pace a wedge will move at when contacting enemy, that means the leading horseman will be through a 10-deep infantry line in 3 seconds (work on 12 km/h. That's 12 000 m/h = 3.33 m/second. A ten-rank infantry line is about 10m deep). No time for any fancy manoeuvring at all.

A good point about the potential speed this could happen at.  However, it does assume the infantry do nothing but dive out of the way.  Even if they wanted to run, they would be hard pressed to get out of the way.  Even if the horseman went for the gap between files, the horse is wider than the gap, so collisions seem inevitable, even if no-one was trying to stop the horse.  However, unless this unit is completely worthless (and even the great advocate of hoplite busting Companions Patrick doesn't think this)  these hoplites will be actively trying to stop the attack.  So, against a determined enemy, I still think you end up with a partial penetration of the formation at best, with the rest of the wedge flattening against the line.  It is then up to the frontmen both to create space for the ranks behind to enter into the "wound" in the infantry formation, to widen it and ultimately split the formation apart.

[Justin Swanton]

The hypothesis is made on the assumption that the infantry files are 3' apart with a 3' gap between each infantryman of a file. The horse are 6' apart, so each front ranker horseman targets the space between every other file. This is important as the infantry will naturally dodge or be pushed into the space between files not being targeted by the horsemen (if they are not knocked down altogether). Once in that space they are disoriented, compacted together and unable to react, and can be easily dispatched by the following horsemen.

Since the hoplite system works on straight files, the gaps between the files are natural corridors through which a thousand-pound horse can push its way unless something more substantial than a human body can stop it. Bearing in mind the leading horseman will be through in seconds - about 2 seconds for a line 6 deep and 4 seconds for a line 12 deep - the Sacred Band would have had no time at all to react.

In devising the Macedonian phalanx, Philip made sure nobody tried the same trick on him. 

[Jim Webster]

Since the hoplite system works on straight files, the gaps between the files are natural corridors through which a thousand-pound horse can push its way unless something more substantial than a human body can stop it. Bearing in mind the leading horseman will be through in seconds - about 2 seconds for a line 6 deep and 4 seconds for a line 12 deep - the Sacred Band would have had no time at all to react.

I'm afraid this just has to be wrong
Or there is no way infantry would ever have stood against cavalry.
Given that infantry did stand against cavalry I think we can assume that it wasn't perhaps that easy

Jim

[Erpingham]

In devising the Macedonian phalanx, Philip made sure nobody tried the same trick on him. 

If I were Philip and my cavalry could destroy elite hoplites in less than 5 seconds, I wouldn't have bothered devising a phalanx