Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Patrick Waterson]

We are back again to what Plutarch intended his words to convey.  Philip hasn't received a CSI report that says all the enemy have received penetrating wounds to the front from sarissa thrusts.  Plutarch is saying that the Sacred Band didn't break but fell where they fought - unlike some of their allies.  I'm not sure he intends us to interpret the type of combat, infantry or cavalry.  In fact, the most likely circumstance which would create a stand where everyone dies in a heap, all facing the front, is if they had formed an allround defence and fought to the last.  This would not fit with a reconstruction where Alexander overruns the Sacred Band in the first minutes, causing mass demoralisation, but rather that they were surrounded and killed later.

Good to have you back, Mr Clipsom. 

One might wonder about the geometry of:

In fact, the most likely circumstance which would create a stand where everyone dies in a heap, all facing the front, is if they had formed an all round defence and fought to the last.

The intent is evidently that an all-round defence requires any casualties to take their wounds in front.  Might I suggest that an overwhelmingly effective frontal cavalry attack would have the same effect, with the important (from our point of view) advantage that the defenders - who being the Sacred Band would indeed not have routed but would have died where they stood - could receive their sarissa-inflicted badges of honour while all facing the same direction?

[Jim Webster]

Alas that we still have no mention in the sources that this was a cavalry attack, nor have we any cavalry armed with Sarissa other than the light scouts

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

Alas that we still have no mention in the sources that this was a cavalry attack, nor have we any cavalry armed with Sarissa other than the light scouts

Jim

The point though is that a cavalry unit armed with sarissas by definition has a shock role in battle, even if it does scout the rest of the time.

[Mark G]

As jim says though, what cavalry, what sarissas?

[aligern]

Just to respond to Justin's note on sarissa armed cavalry having, by definition a shock role. Later steppe cavalry often carry long spears in a light role. I tend to think that this may well be to deal with other light cavalry. that might well result in contact, but it is not necessarily a shock role, more a matter of having the final word in driving off opposing lights.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Patrick answered this point earlier in the thread:

The idea that sarissaphoroi were, or became, scouts seems to rest on their later designation as prodromoi, which literally suggests 'runners before', plus some examples of actual scouting.  In Arrian III.7.7 the prodromoi report a sighting of enemy cavalry, and in III.8.1 Alexander takes the ile basilike, one ile of Companions and his Paeonians prodromon to deal with them.  Prodromon here may mean 'at speed' or simply 'in advance', or even both, as the main body of the army are told to follow at their own pace.

If the prodromoi were given a scouting role it may well have dated from Alexander's reign: when Alexander was operating in Thrace and Illyria just after his accession there are no references to scouts but a few to him 'receiving messages', making me wonder if the sarissophoroi (who are not mentioned, sources being similarly quiet about prodromoi) were as yet not rearmed with xystons or were away with Parmenio, or both.  They are present at the Granicus, commanded by Aretes and termed 'sarissophoroi' there, but following the Granicus there are no references to sarissophoroi and when Aretes is next mentioned he is commanding prodromoi.

However the prodromoi were also effective shock troops: at Gaugamela, the Persian left, around 20,000 strong, is broken by "the powerful assault of Aretes and his men" (Arrian III.14.3).  As sarissophoroi, they led the assault across the Granicus together with the Paeonians (another useful shock contingent) plus supporting infantry (archers and Agrianes) and the Macedonian cavalry squadron of the day.

Curiously enough, Arrian renames the sarissophoroi in mid-battle: in I.14.1 they are sarissophorous hippeas but once they cross the river in I.14.6 they are prodromous hippeas.  For the rest of Arrian's history they are prodromoi, still commanded by Aretes.

The sarissophoroi/prodromoi and the Paeonians both exhibited this dual-use capability: not only did they seem to do vanguard work and scouting, they also did much shock work at the sharp end on the battlefield.  One wonders if the prodromoi would use lances when scouting; they would certainly find them helpful in battle.

Make sarissaphoroi the cavalry unit led by Alexander against the Thebans and the text of Diodorus becomes coherent - probing attacks by cavalry that pierce the Greek phalanx without blowing it away, followed by a coup de grace by the Macedonian phalangites that dispatches the Greek right flank.

[Jim Webster]

Alas that we still have no mention in the sources that this was a cavalry attack, nor have we any cavalry armed with Sarissa other than the light scouts

Jim

The point though is that a cavalry unit armed with sarissas by definition has a shock role in battle, even if it does scout the rest of the time.

Not necessarily. It's role may be to be held by for the pursuit where they are far more efficient at butchering fleeing infantry. To ask unarmoured men to ride into the front of formed up infantry units is not going to end well

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

The point though is that this is exactly what they did at the Granicus and at Gaugamela: heavy infantry in the former case, heavy armoured cavalry in the latter. Hardly the work of pure and simple scouts.

[Jim Webster]

The point though is that this is exactly what they did at the Granicus and at Gaugamela: heavy infantry in the former case, heavy armoured cavalry in the latter. Hardly the work of pure and simple scouts.

Remember we're not always entirely sure who the prodromoi were or how they fitted in

https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/48/Rzepka.pdf

Also they seem to have been just absorbed in the the Companions because Macedonians were needed more than light cavalry scouts, but looking above, they might always have been part of the companions.

But there again, why on earth call a small group of cavalry sarissaphoroi if all Macedonian cavalry carried sarissa? Remember the Greeks were very enthusiastic on naming troops from weapon or (particularly) shield type, the latter not much use for cavalry.
So Troops were described as peltasts because they carried a certain type of shield, not because the adopted a certain sort of behaviour on the battlefield.

So sarissaphoroi would be called sarissaphoroi because they carried sarissa. It had to be a distinguishing feature or ALL macedonian cavalry would have been described as sarissaphoroi

• It may be that they were never light cavalry as we would think of them but were always men chosen for scouting and as such they might have been as well armoured as anyone else,
  


• Or it may have been that we've got over-focussed on a purely wargames mechanic. Whilst we assume light horse need missile weapons to skirmish with, our ancestors knew better. Bedoiun could skirmish with light lances, and Northern Horse were known as 'prickers' because they did skirmish with light lances. Just because we, at least three generations removed from proper horsed cavalry, don't know how it works doesn't mean it didn't. So the sarissaphoroi light horse may well have skirmished heavy cavalry out of the battle just as adequately as Numidians might. Similarly they might have been able to 'skirmish' heavy infantry out of the battle. You don't have to kill units to eliminate them.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

So sarissaphoroi would be called sarissaphoroi because they carried sarissa. It had to be a distinguishing feature or ALL macedonian cavalry would have been described as sarissaphoroi

• It may be that they were never light cavalry as we would think of them but were always men chosen for scouting and as such they might have been as well armoured as anyone else,
  


• Or it may have been that we've got over-focussed on a purely wargames mechanic. Whilst we assume light horse need missile weapons to skirmish with, our ancestors knew better. Bedoiun could skirmish with light lances, and Northern Horse were known as 'prickers' because they did skirmish with light lances. Just because we, at least three generations removed from proper horsed cavalry, don't know how it works doesn't mean it didn't. So the sarissaphoroi light horse may well have skirmished heavy cavalry out of the battle just as adequately as Numidians might. Similarly they might have been able to 'skirmish' heavy infantry out of the battle. You don't have to kill units to eliminate them.

Jim

The sarissophoroi/prodromoi are described in our sources as undertaking definite shock action as opposed to 'pricking' (e.g. "the powerful assault of Aretes and his men" at Gaugamela in Arrian III.14).  Given this, I suspect the first option may be the one which corresponds with history.

The designation 'sarissophoroi' would seem to be connected with the weapon, but were they so named in Arrian because they were the only Macdonian cavalry ever to carry it or because they were the last to remain equipped with it?

[Jim Webster]

The sarissophoroi/prodromoi are described in our sources as undertaking definite shock action as opposed to 'pricking' (e.g. "the powerful assault of Aretes and his men" at Gaugamela in Arrian III.14).  Given this, I suspect the first option may be the one which corresponds with history.

The designation 'sarissophoroi' would seem to be connected with the weapon, but were they so named in Arrian because they were the only Macdonian cavalry ever to carry it or because they were the last to remain equipped with it?

Well have we any evidence that any other Macedonian cavalry were ever equipped with it?

Jim

[Mark G]

Given the effort Justin put into this mammoth, the article should be good.
But i do hope you stick to internal source consistency.

If one source says Alex was cavalry and another says the cav had sarissa and a third says thebans had sarissa wounds, it does not follow that this proves Alex charged on horseback with sarissa armed cavalry and broke thebans frontally. Especially not if the first source has no thebans, the second has Alex on foot and the third has no cavalry.

And for my money, id say Philip, inventor of pike tactics, places young son in with his guard on foot to learn his trade. The terrain and army descriptions are far too pro infantry to suggest anyone would chose to put mon-expendable cavalry in the front line

[Justin Swanton]

Given the effort Justin put into this mammoth, the article should be good.
But i do hope you stick to internal source consistency.

I'll do my best. 

If one source says Alex was cavalry and another says the cav had sarissa and a third says thebans had sarissa wounds, it does not follow that this proves Alex charged on horseback with sarissa armed cavalry and broke thebans frontally. Especially not if the first source has no thebans, the second has Alex on foot and the third has no cavalry.

My approach is to try and reconcile the different sources as far as is reasonably possible, on the assumption that the authors were just as intelligent and wary of old wives' tales as we are - unless they were using them for propaganda purposes, like our own stereotyped caricatures of WW2 Germans or Japanese. And one can spot propaganda.

And for my money, id say Philip, inventor of pike tactics, places young son in with his guard on foot to learn his trade. The terrain and army descriptions are far too pro infantry to suggest anyone would chose to put mon-expendable cavalry in the front line

Yet this is exactly what Alexander did at Issus, if Diodorus is to be believed. Issus should have been an infantry battle - the battlefield was narrower than Chaeronea, and the armies larger, and yet it was decided by cavalry.

[Jim Webster]

Yet this is exactly what Alexander did at Issus, if Diodorus is to be believed. Issus should have been an infantry battle - the battlefield was narrower than Chaeronea, and the armies larger, and yet it was decided by cavalry.

But at Issus the decent hoplite infantry was faced off by Sarissa pikemen, Alexander didn't attempt to ride it down with cavalry.
The cavalry charged the barbarian infantry

Looking at some people's interpretation of Chaeronea, Alexander was an utter idiot at Issus.
All he had to do was to find a place where the hoplites were standing on a reasonable gently sloping bit of river bank, and one Ile of companions would have punched a hole through them, (after all, advanced calculations and modelling have showed that a forty yard gap of easy terrain is all that was needed) the second and third ile would have widened the gap and the Sarissa armed pike men would have followed up their aristocratic betters and rolled up the rest of the hoplite line with virtually no casualties.
Abandoning mere pikemen to face off hoplites led to heavy and totally unwarranted casualties when the cavalry could have done it so easily.

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

Arrian sheds some light on the question:

For Darius was no longer leading the foreigners against him, as he had arranged them at first, but he remained in his position, upon the bank of the river, which was in many parts steep and precipitous ; and in certain places, where it seemed more easy to ascend, he extended a stockade along it. By this it was at once evident to Alexander's men that Darius had become cowed in spirit. But when the armies at length met in conflict, Alexander rode about in every direction to exhort his troops to show their valour; mentioning with befitting epithets the names, not only of the generals, but also those of the captains of cavalry and infantry, and of the Grecian mercenaries as many as were more distinguished either by rank or merit. From all sides arose a shout not to delay but to attack the enemy. 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, in order to alarm the Persians by the rapidity of their onset, and by coming sooner to close conflict to receive little damage from the archers. And it turned out just as Alexander had conjectured ; for as soon as the battle became a hand-to-hand one, the part of the Persian army stationed on the left wing was put to rout ; and here Alexander and his men won a brilliant victory. But the Grecian mercenaries serving under Darius attacked the Macedonians at the point where they saw their phalanx especially disordered. 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 ; but the Macedonians in the centre did not execute their task with equal speed; and finding many parts of the bank steep and precipitous, they were unable to preserve the front of the phalanx in the same line. - Arrian 2. 10

In other words, Alexander chose the part of the river that had the gentlest banks so he could attack the enemy at speed. This part happened to be where the kardakes were posted, so Alexander went through them. The Macedonian phalanx had the toughest job, attacking the mercenary Greeks up the steepest banks of the river. What can you do? The boss gets the best seat.