Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Patrick Waterson]

We have alexander facing the sacred band - only 300 men, i recall.  How many of them had retained the same level of quality as their forebears at leuctra 40 years earlier?

Judging by the fact that they all fell 'with their wounds in front', one could say all of them.

Doesnt Polyaenus have something about the athenians being pulled forward by a feigned retreat by Philip? 
That indicates a less than well drilled Athenian contingent for a start.

Not disagreeing there: the Athenians were still a home-grown hoplite army not up to the standard of the Spartans or the Sacred Band.

And isnt it diodorus who describes alexander as being with companions, but where does he mention them being horsed?

Diodorus writes (XVI.86.1-4)

"The armies deployed at dawn, and the king stationed his son Alexander, young in age but noted for his valour and swiftness of action, on one wing, placing beside him his most seasoned generals, while he himself at the head of picked men exercised the command over the other; individual units were stationed where the occasion required. 2 On the other side, dividing the line according to nationality, the Athenians assigned one wing to the Boeotians and kept command of the other themselves. Once joined, the battle was hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides, so that for a while the struggle permitted hopes of victory to both.

3 Then Alexander, his heart set on showing his father his prowess and yielding to none in will to win, ably seconded by his men, first succeeded in rupturing the solid front of the enemy line and striking down many he bore heavily on the troops opposite him. As the same success was won by his companions, gaps in the front were constantly opened. 4 Corpses piled up, until finally Alexander forced his way through the line and put his opponents to flight. 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."

The word translated 'companions' here is not 'hetairoi' (Companions) but 'parastaton', either those close to/next to Alexander or perhaps those commanding other formations (1,000 cavalry, the number one would expect on each wing, would form five 200-man wedges).  While horses are not explicitly mentioned (nor is being on foot) one may note that both Alexander and Philip are leading from ahead - Alexander is the first through the ruptured enemy front and Philip is 'well in front' when advancing.  Although the terminology is not necessarily conclusive, it is suggestive of a wedge, and hence of cavalry.  One may also remember that Macedonian monarchs we see on the battlefield are almost invariably leading cavalry: Antigonus at Ipsus is the exception, having apparently put his whole cavalry contingent under his son Demetrius.

While its plutarch who says alexander broke the line, but who also says the thebans fell before sarissa and were face to face with the macedonian phalanx.

Plutarch mentions the sarissa but not the phalanx - the latter is a translator's interpolation.  The existence, or rumoured existence, of a cavalry type termed 'sarissaphoroi' indicates that Plutarch need not have been using 'sarissa' to indicate an infantry weapon.  Indeed, one might hypothesise (albeit without much weight) that the sarissa may originally have been developed for Macedonian cavalry and was subsequently adopted by Macedonian infantry as the cavalry adopted the lighter xyston.

Wasnt alexander at the front of the hypaspists at Issus when they broke through initially, before remounting to chase darius from the field
- again reinforcing the suggestion that at Chaeronea he had an infantry command - which is only logical given its placement jammed against a river.

Not in any of our sources: Arrian by implication puts him at the head of the Companions: he and they could not 'ride at a gallop' into action if on foot.  Diodorus XVI.33.2 is even more definite: "He himself advanced at the head of the right wing to the encounter, having with him the best of the mounted troops."

[Jim Webster]

Diodorus writes (XVI.86.1-4)

"The armies deployed at dawn, and the king stationed his son Alexander, young in age but noted for his valour and swiftness of action, on one wing, placing beside him his most seasoned generals, while he himself at the head of picked men exercised the command over the other; individual units were stationed where the occasion required. 2 On the other side, dividing the line according to nationality, the Athenians assigned one wing to the Boeotians and kept command of the other themselves. Once joined, the battle was hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides, so that for a while the struggle permitted hopes of victory to both.

3 Then Alexander, his heart set on showing his father his prowess and yielding to none in will to win, ably seconded by his men, first succeeded in rupturing the solid front of the enemy line and striking down many he bore heavily on the troops opposite him. As the same success was won by his companions, gaps in the front were constantly opened. 4 Corpses piled up, until finally Alexander forced his way through the line and put his opponents to flight. 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."

The word translated 'companions' here is not 'hetairoi' (Companions) but 'parastaton', either those close to/next to Alexander or perhaps those commanding other formations (1,000 cavalry, the number one would expect on each wing, would form five 200-man wedges).  While horses are not explicitly mentioned (nor is being on foot) one may note that both Alexander and Philip are leading from ahead - Alexander is the first through the ruptured enemy front and Philip is 'well in front' when advancing.  Although the terminology is not necessarily conclusive, it is suggestive of a wedge, and hence of cavalry.  One may also remember that Macedonian monarchs we see on the battlefield are almost invariably leading cavalry: Antigonus at Ipsus is the exception, having apparently put his whole cavalry contingent under his son Demetrius.

Nothing there to say cavalry, and nothing to say wedge really.
Indeed Generals advance and force the enemy to fall back without drawing a sword. Alexander "ably seconded by his men" wins by his charisma or his cunning, he doesn't actually have to hit people with a sharpened steel bar.

Jim

[Erpingham]

Diodorus doesn't seem to say Alexander faced the Sacred band.  Is this detail in another source?

[Duncan Head]

Plutarch's Life of Pelopidas; it's quoted either earlier in this thead or in the Crazy for Chaeronea one.

[Mark G]

The time the fight takes is interesting too, if you take the view that Philip did pull back, the Athenians followed up, and Philip was able to flank them, it adds some considerable time to the battle, which again reinforces doubt upon a hard charging companion attack breaking through on the other flank; and instead suggests a longer infantry battle

[Patrick Waterson]

Indeed Generals advance and force the enemy to fall back without drawing a sword. Alexander "ably seconded by his men" wins by his charisma or his cunning, he doesn't actually have to hit people with a sharpened steel bar.

That would certainly be news to the Sacred Band, who presumably died with just their autograph books in front. 

The time the fight takes is interesting too, if you take the view that Philip did pull back, the Athenians followed up, and Philip was able to flank them, it adds some considerable time to the battle, which again reinforces doubt upon a hard charging companion attack breaking through on the other flank; and instead suggests a longer infantry battle

But only if one takes that view.  Is it actually based on a source statement?  Plutarch tells us only that Alexander was first to break into, or break through [enseisai], the Sacred Band (Life of Alexander, 9), and that Demosthenes' sole contribution to Chaeronea was to abandon his unit and run away disgracefully (Life of Demosthenes, 20), plus the bit in his Life of Pelopidas about the Sacred Band dying with all their wounds in front.  In any event, Philip could still pull back (say off a slope and onto the level) and then hit the Athenians frontally, assuming such a pull back did happen.

[Jim Webster]

Indeed Generals advance and force the enemy to fall back without drawing a sword. Alexander "ably seconded by his men" wins by his charisma or his cunning, he doesn't actually have to hit people with a sharpened steel bar.

That would certainly be news to the Sacred Band, who presumably died with just their autograph books in front. 

He's a general, (and a sixteen or seventeen year old one at that). He has plenty of highly paid and burly individuals to do the killing for him.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I doubt he would be any more combat-shy at Chaeronea than he was at the Granicus, where he led the main attack and was very definitely in the thick of the action, with one of his burly chaps saving his life, or at least ensuring it was not at risk, when the Persian satraps crowded around him.

[Jim Webster]

I doubt he would be any more combat-shy at Chaeronea than he was at the Granicus, where he led the main attack and was very definitely in the thick of the action, with one of his burly chaps saving his life, or at least ensuring it was not at risk, when the Persian satraps crowded around him.

At Granicus he was 22 and King, at Chaeronea he was 18, barely of an age to called up and he'd do what his father bluidy well told him :-)

I don't think you can extrapolate back to Chaeronea from Granicus, too many things had changed.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Bear in mind that he commanded his first campaign - very successfully - at 16. 

"While Philip was making an expedition against Byzantium, Alexander, though only sixteen years of age, was left behind as regent in Macedonia and keeper of the royal seal, and during this time he subdued the rebellious Maedi, and after taking their city, drove out the Barbarians, settled there a mixed population, and named the city Alexandropolis." - Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 9.1

[Jim Webster]

Bear in mind that he commanded his first campaign - very successfully - at 16. 

"While Philip was making an expedition against Byzantium, Alexander, though only sixteen years of age, was left behind as regent in Macedonia and keeper of the royal seal, and during this time he subdued the rebellious Maedi, and after taking their city, drove out the Barbarians, settled there a mixed population, and named the city Alexandropolis." - Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 9.1

There is a great deal of difference between winning battles, conducting successful campaigns and personally hacking your way through eight ranks of burly hoplites. At eighteen he isn't going to have the weight.
On horseback it's not quite such a disadvantage, but you've still not got the reach of an adult and your blows aren't as heavy.

What we have to remember is that a general can lead his men to glory without even drawing his sword.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

What we have to remember is that a general can lead his men to glory without even drawing his sword.

A Roman general, yes: not a Hellenistic monarch.  Being up front not just with the lads but actually ahead of them was part of the art of Macedonian kingship, at least under Philip and Alexander.  Besides, it gives the somatophylakes something to do (and occasionally boast about afterwards).  Alexander was anyway first into danger throughout what we now of his life and would not have abided being anywhere but up front at Chaeronea.

Hence I think that any attempt to evict Alexander from the point of a putative wedge at Chaeronea on the basis of generalisations about the military art is going to be stillborn. 

[Erpingham]

Hence I think that any attempt to evict Alexander from the point of a putative wedge at Chaeronea on the basis of generalisations about the military art is going to be stillborn. 

I suspect we do not know enough about the organisation of the close royal guard to say for certain but the front of a cavalry wedge is very exposed - there is a difference between heroic and suicidal.  Alexander may cross the point in later life (after he becomes convinced he is divine?) but as early as Chaeronea?  That is of course if there is anything to the fact that the Theban Sacred band were ridden down by a cavalry wedge at all.

[Jim Webster]

What we have to remember is that a general can lead his men to glory without even drawing his sword.

A Roman general, yes: not a Hellenistic monarch.  Being up front not just with the lads but actually ahead of them was part of the art of Macedonian kingship, at least under Philip and Alexander.  Besides, it gives the somatophylakes something to do (and occasionally boast about afterwards).  Alexander was anyway first into danger throughout what we now of his life and would not have abided being anywhere but up front at Chaeronea.

Hence I think that any attempt to evict Alexander from the point of a putative wedge at Chaeronea on the basis of generalisations about the military art is going to be stillborn. 

Well at Chaeronea he wasn't a monarch, he was just some kid who needed nursemaiding lest he get himself killed

At Chaeronea he'd have done what he was told and liked it.

Evicted him from the point of a wedge for which there is no evidence that it existed, or whether it was infantry or cavalry or even had him in it?

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

Apologies all if already stated elsewhere but are any of our sources from eyewitness accounts of the battle?