Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Duncan Head]

He also says the Sacred band met the Macedonian infantry face to face.

Actually he says no such thing, in fact: he says (in his Life of Pelopidas, 18) that the Sacred Band fell to Macedonian sarissas.

keisthai tous triakosious, enantious apēntēkotas tais sarisais hapantas en tois hoplois kai met' allēlōn anamemigmenous

(the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the sarissas, with their armour, and mingled one with another)

Macedonian infantry is not mentioned.  The Perseus translator, however, took it upon himself to add 'of the phalanx' after 'sarissas', presumably to order matters in his own mind.

Going back a few pages, when Patrick said:

In Plutarch's Alexander (68.4) Alexander slays Abuletes, son of Oxyathres, with a sarisa (one would expect him to use a xyston), and in 67.2, when the army is having a 'Bacchic march' Plutarch remarks that 'not a shield (pelta) nor helmet (kranos) nor spear (sarisa) was to be seen'.  The focus of this comment seems to be upon Alexander and his Companions, although it could be a generalised comment applied to the whole army, but in such a case I would expected 'aspis' rather than 'pelta' as the generic word for shield.

and

I was looking solely at Plutarch's usage, and this suggests he used 'pelta' as the Macedonian cavalry shield and 'xyston' or 'sarisa' interchangeably as the Macedonian cavalry lance.

- I forgot to mention the obvious response, namely, that Plutarch's Aemilius Paullus 19 makes it clear that Plutarch's vocabulary for Macedonian infantry equipment was precisely sarisa and pelte. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that Alex. 67.2 focusses on the Companions, especially since these are not normally associated with any shield, but rather on the Macedonian infantry.

Therefore, despite everything Patrick has put forward, it still seems to me that there is no passage where Plutarch can be show to use sarissa for a cavalry spear; that, therefore, the sarissai that slew the Sacred Band were indeed those of the Macedonian infantry, even though Plutarch doesn't explicitly say so; and, therefore, that whether Alexander fought on foot, found a gap in the line with his cavalry as Hammond postulated, or pranced about looking pretty while sycophants wrote fictions, he did not on this occasion lead cavalry into a frontal charge against hoplites.

[Imperial Dave]

It does not seem to have been strained at the time of Chaeronea, nor does Alexander have a history of being 'restrained' by his father.  One may remember that at the age of ten he was allowed to approach and interact with a dangerous and untameable horse.  We should beware of assuming that Macedonian heirs were 'cosseted' - everything we have indicates they were encouraged to behave like men and take risks like men.

True but the incident at Philip's wedding and subsequent exile of Alexander must have festered. Suppose Philip wanted to slight Alexander by cossetting him at Chaeronea in direct opposition to the "norm" as you have suggested.....?

2 years later Philip lies dead and there is a whiff of smoke where Alexander is concerned

Patricide and filicide occur with depressing regularity 

[Erpingham]

If so, none of our sources mention it, which would be a most surprising omission if it were in fact an omission.

Given that our sources leave out or leave uncertain so much about Chaeronea, I don't think that argument holds. Personally, I think it highly unlikely that Philip's counselors would be utterly indifferent to matters of succession.  In any case, the intention was to show a parallel from pre-modern times, as against Roy's House of Windsor example.  I don't think it is a major factor in discussing cavalry tactics.

[Patrick Waterson]

Going back a few pages, when Patrick said:

In Plutarch's Alexander (68.4) Alexander slays Abuletes, son of Oxyathres, with a sarisa (one would expect him to use a xyston), and in 67.2, when the army is having a 'Bacchic march' Plutarch remarks that 'not a shield (pelta) nor helmet (kranos) nor spear (sarisa) was to be seen'.  The focus of this comment seems to be upon Alexander and his Companions, although it could be a generalised comment applied to the whole army, but in such a case I would expected 'aspis' rather than 'pelta' as the generic word for shield.

and

I was looking solely at Plutarch's usage, and this suggests he used 'pelta' as the Macedonian cavalry shield and 'xyston' or 'sarisa' interchangeably as the Macedonian cavalry lance.

- I forgot to mention the obvious response, namely, that Plutarch's Aemilius Paullus 19 makes it clear that Plutarch's vocabulary for Macedonian infantry equipment was precisely sarisa and pelte. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that Alex. 67.2 focusses on the Companions, especially since these are not normally associated with any shield, but rather on the Macedonian infantry.

Unfortunately that argument does not hold, because in Plutarch's Alexander 16.4 Alexander at the Granicus is described as:

"... conspicuous by his buckler [pelte] and by his helmet's crest ..."

Hence here we have Plutarch using 'pelta' unequivocally as a Macedonian cavalry shield, and doing so in the life of Alexander, not in a period removed from it by almost two centuries.  If anything, this turns the argument around the other way.

The only other use of 'pelta' by Plutarch in his Life of Alexander is in the previously-mentioned episode in chapter 67, when Alexander and "the rest of his friends and commanders" are having their Dionysiac procession in covered waggons and "Not a shield [ou pelten] was to be seen, not a helmet [ou kranos], not a spear [ou sarisan] ..."

It is not wholly clear whether this description refers only to Alexander and his close Companions or includes the rest of the army, in which "along the whole march with cups and drinking-horns and flagons the soldiers kept dipping wine from huge casks and mixing-bowls and pledging one another," (if Plutarch is referring to the whole army then one could argue that he is subsuming everything under infantry equipment, though one could equally argue that he uses these terms - pelta and sarissa - for both infantry and cavalry equipment) but the argument that Plutarch uses 'pelta' to designate a phalangite shield is definitely negated by his use of it in Alexander 16.4.

Unless someone would like to suggest that Alexander went into action on foot at the head of infantry in his attack across the Granicus ... 

It does not seem to have been strained at the time of Chaeronea, nor does Alexander have a history of being 'restrained' by his father.  One may remember that at the age of ten he was allowed to approach and interact with a dangerous and untameable horse.  We should beware of assuming that Macedonian heirs were 'cosseted' - everything we have indicates they were encouraged to behave like men and take risks like men.

Suppose Philip wanted to slight Alexander by cossetting him at Chaeronea in direct opposition to the "norm" as you have suggested.....?

If so, then Plutarch's biography of Alexander would have read somewhat differently, along the lines of: "A further grudge he bore against his father was not being allowed to distinguish himself at Chaeronea."

Personally, I think it highly unlikely that Philip's counselors would be utterly indifferent to matters of succession.  In any case, the intention was to show a parallel from pre-modern times, as against Roy's House of Windsor example.  I don't think it is a major factor in discussing cavalry tactics.

Fair enough, from that angle.  Concerning Macedonian matters of succession, my impression is that counsellors' chief preoccupation was to emerge on the winning side in the succession struggle that often followed the demise of a king.  We may note that Alexander swiftly secured his position by dealing with at least one cousin, so I do not see any argument for preserving the heir apparent because he is the heir apparent (there were always a number of those), rather that in the highly competitive world of Macedonian monarchy the lad should have the chance to win his spurs, so to speak.

[aligern]

On Philip letting Alexander fight in the front I would cite 'let the boy win his spurs'

There are all sorts of relationships between fathers and sons so I don't buy the anthropological arguments. It is more important that the attitude of the Macedonian king is to lead from the front at key times. If Alexander does not do this how is he going to dominate the Macedonian aristocracy?


Despite all the discussion on whether Alexander is leading a  pike phalanx, his guards dismounted or his horsed companions I don't think we have excluded any of the options?
It does strike me, that determined horsemen can always melee with and put pressure on foot, especially foot without pikes. Hence whether it is likely or not, a mounted attack is feasible.

Roy

[Mark G]

Of course, sensible horsemen will charge in and out repeatedly, as they are basically buggered on their left once the horse is motionless and the infantry have recovered from the impact

[Duncan Head]

Unfortunately that argument does not hold, because in Plutarch's Alexander 16.4 Alexander at the Granicus is described as:

"... conspicuous by his buckler [pelte] and by his helmet's crest ..."

Hence here we have Plutarch using 'pelta' unequivocally as a Macedonian cavalry shield, and doing so in the life of Alexander, not in a period removed from it by almost two centuries.  If anything, this turns the argument around the other way.

Except that, as we discussed elsewhere, this incident may be complete fiction. I am quite happy that Plutarch may use pelte for an imaginary shield.

The only other use of 'pelta' by Plutarch in his Life of Alexander is in the previously-mentioned episode in chapter 67

I am not convinced you can draw meaningful conclusions from a  sample size of two.

[Erpingham]

On Philip letting Alexander fight in the front I would cite 'let the boy win his spurs'

By standing at the front of an infantry formation, with experienced knights around him.  Edward III had a good relationship with his son, so we can rule out the assisted suicide explanation

It does strike me, that determined horsemen can always melee with and put pressure on foot, especially foot without pikes. Hence whether it is likely or not, a mounted attack is feasible.

Roy

A mounted attack is certainly feasible but would it be one perfect charge in wedge formation led by Alexander?  Or would it be more like Mark's idea of a lot of in and out fighting, trying to create an exploitable gap?  As we can't actually answer unequivocally that there was a cavalry attack at all, it seems that the rest must be our best informed speculation (as often is the case).

[Mark G]

For clarity, in strongly on the "not mounted in the first place " camp .

Especially as there were only 300 Theban sacred band (300 / 8 deep = sod all)  , it makes sense that the space itself was very small and constricted. Ideal for an elite infantry force, pointless for a mounted one.

[Duncan Head]

Especially as there were only 300 Theban sacred band (300 / 8 deep = sod all)

We cannot rule out that they might have been the front rank of a wider formation. This (according to Plutarch's Pelopidas) was how Gorgidas had originally used them, and although Pelopidas favoured concentrating them in one body we can't be sure of how they fought after Pelopidas and Epaminondas.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am not convinced you can draw meaningful conclusions from a  sample size of two.

Perhaps not, but these are the only samples in Plutarch's Life of Alexander, so this is 100% of the sample size and it seems (at least in my understanding) that both point in the same direction.

A mounted attack is certainly feasible but would it be one perfect charge in wedge formation led by Alexander?  Or would it be more like Mark's idea of a lot of in and out fighting, trying to create an exploitable gap?  As we can't actually answer unequivocally that there was a cavalry attack at all, it seems that the rest must be our best informed speculation (as often is the case).

We do know that the typical tactic of Macedonian xyston-armed wedges was to go in and push through, judging by accounts of the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela (and, as far as we can judge, the Jaxartes).  There was one battle in which the Macedonian cavalry did make repeated charges, pulling back for another go each time, and this was the Hydaspes.  We can conclude that they could do this but mostly chose not to.  At the Hydaspes their opponents were able to fall back on elephants, which might account for the different tactics there.

There would be no advantage to adopting this mode of attack against hoplites: one would simply sacrifice the disorganisation created by the initial impact, allow strikes at the retiring horsemen and then have to do it all again.  If going for an in-and-out style of attacking against hoplites, the best weapon to use would be the javelin.

We might not be able to say unequivocally that there was a cavalry attack on the Sacred Band at Chaeronea (there are comparatively few things we can say unequivocally about most events in classical history), but every clue and indicator we have seems to point that way: Alexander's Companions' performance at the Granicus and Issus, his leaving hoplite bodies along his path of attack in the Alexander Mosaic, the Chaeronea description of Alexander as being the first into (or first through) the Theban formation and Philip similarly 'ahead of' his troops.  All of these are indicative, and while we can attempt pick holes in each individual instance in isolation, when we put them together the result looks consistent.

[Jim Webster]

 
We might not be able to say unequivocally that there was a cavalry attack on the Sacred Band at Chaeronea (there are comparatively few things we can say unequivocally about most events in classical history), but every clue and indicator we have seems to point that way:
1) Alexander's Companions' performance at the Granicus and Issus,
2) his leaving hoplite bodies along his path of attack in the Alexander Mosaic,
3) the Chaeronea description of Alexander as being the first into (or first through) the Theban formation and Philip similarly 'ahead of' his troops. 

All of these are indicative, and while we can attempt pick holes in each individual instance in isolation, when we put them together the result looks consistent.

I took the liberty of splitting your points and numbering them.

1) At Granicus and Issus we have no evidence of the Companions charging hoplites frontally. At Granicus it was cavalry (against the surrounded and doomed Greek hoplites at the end the sources strike me as not supporting a cavalry charge into the front of them.)

2) This one I wouldn't like to say either way. A group of hoplon carrying guards might well have been ridden down, they could have been men who got caught when their unit fell back or whatever.

3)  We know (I assume) that Philip was not on horseback. Comparison with Philip might just mean that Alexander was somewhere in the Macedonian phalanx that fought the Thebans

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

 
We might not be able to say unequivocally that there was a cavalry attack on the Sacred Band at Chaeronea (there are comparatively few things we can say unequivocally about most events in classical history), but every clue and indicator we have seems to point that way:
1) Alexander's Companions' performance at the Granicus and Issus,
2) his leaving hoplite bodies along his path of attack in the Alexander Mosaic,
3) the Chaeronea description of Alexander as being the first into (or first through) the Theban formation and Philip similarly 'ahead of' his troops. 

All of these are indicative, and while we can attempt pick holes in each individual instance in isolation, when we put them together the result looks consistent.

I took the liberty of splitting your points and numbering them.

1) At Granicus and Issus we have no evidence of the Companions charging hoplites frontally. At Granicus it was cavalry (against the surrounded and doomed Greek hoplites at the end the sources strike me as not supporting a cavalry charge into the front of them.)

2) This one I wouldn't like to say either way. A group of hoplon carrying guards might well have been ridden down, they could have been men who got caught when their unit fell back or whatever.

3)  We know (I assume) that Philip was not on horseback. Comparison with Philip might just mean that Alexander was somewhere in the Macedonian phalanx that fought the Thebans

Jim

I would (not unexpectedly ) take issue with each of these.

1) At the Granicus Alexander did charge the enemy hoplites and had a horse killed under him.  Since the hoplites were under a 'combined attack by infantry and cavalry" (Arrian) we can deduce they were surrounded, hence facing in all directions, hence any attack on them would perforce be frontal.  At Issus he was admittedly charging Kardakes; I added that to show the continuity of tradition of Macedonian cavalry charging directly into opposing infantry.

2) If the Companions did not kill/maim those hoplites in the Alexander Mosaic, who did?  They have Companions to the left of them (from the viewer's angle) and Persians to the right of them.  I doubt that the Persians would themselves have killed hoplites who were in Alexander's way, and the hoplites would not have killed themselves or each other, which would seem to leave just the Companions as the instruments of death and serious injury.

3) We definitely do not 'know' that Philip was not on horseback at Chaeronea: it has just been assumed in the absence of a clear statement either way that me 'must have' been on foot despite the description of him being 'in front of' his soldiers.  Such a description fits better with a wedge, and we do know that Macedonian Companions fought in wedge whereas we have no accounts of Macedonian infantry fighting in wedge.

Putting these clues together with the consistent pattern of Macedonian monarchs (and heirs) leading mounted from the front, it seems reasonable to extrapolate this behaviour back to Chaeronea, especially given its consistency with the few clues we have.

[Erpingham]

2) If the Companions did not kill/maim those hoplites in the Alexander Mosaic, who did?  They have Companions to the left of them (from the viewer's angle) and Persians to the right of them.  I doubt that the Persians would themselves have killed hoplites who were in Alexander's way, and the hoplites would not have killed themselves or each other, which would seem to leave just the Companions as the instruments of death and serious injury.

The painting/mosaic is of course a moment in time - we cannot be sure how the artist perceived the run up to the scene.  Nor can we be certain that it accurately reflects that moment in time - it is an art work not an action photo.  So arguing that the presence of apparent dead hoplites in the composition means that Alexander has just carved through a phalanx of formed hoplites leading a wedge formation, in the process losing his helmet, might be a stretch of the evidence?

[aligern]

Duncan's suggestion of  the Theban Sacred Band fronting a wider formation of say 800 men makes a lot of sense. If they are in an 8 deep formation then all dying with wounds to the front is just a bit less likely than if they are the front two or three ranks of a formation.