Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Justin Swanton]

Hence a lone cavalryman should be able to push though an infantry formation and possibly take out a footman whilst doing so, without needing any mounted colleagues behind him.

So they don't really need a wedge at all?

If they're doing this as a formation then, yes, (hypothetically of course) they would. A Companion going it alone into a mass of hoplites is buying an express ticket to the Elysium Fields since the hoplites are unlikely to feel intimidated and will be able to concentrate on bringing him down. Faced with an approaching mass of horsemen, each hoplite is more likely to concentrate on the horseman in front of him, and do so with defensive outlook, especially if such an attack is not expected. This very much increases the security of each rider.

[Jim Webster]

Hence a lone cavalryman should be able to push though an infantry formation and possibly take out a footman whilst doing so, without needing any mounted colleagues behind him.

So they don't really need a wedge at all?

Exactly which is what I pointed out from the suggested model (I think on about the 19th)
That from the model they're offering, the wedge becomes unnecessary because if it works it will work in linear  formation

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

Presuming that the Companions penetrate the hoplites by each cavalry file making for the gap between every other infantry file, then a wedge is a useful formation for enabling the frontmost cavalry file leader to steer the wedge and its files towards and into the right infantry files, something which is impossible to do with a linear formation. Whether the files on the edge consisted of one or more horsemen is rather irrelevant to the basic efficacy of the wedge.

[Patrick Waterson]

Whether wedge or line I should imagine it would not be an easy task for a horseman, lance in hand, to pick out and eliminate a hoplite in a close shield formation.  Didn't Xenophon describe, in the return journey of the Ten thousand, an incident when hoplites formed up, moved as one, and unintentionally intimidated and caused panic among allied horse?  Horses being intelligent animals may be a little hesitant to impale themselves on pointed sticks or have hooves cut by sharp swords.  I suppose it all depends on the training and leadership of the opposing forces.
Robert Gargan

Given that the xyston had a reach advantage over the typical hoplite doru (spear), the question of willingness or unwillingness of horses to impale themselves probably never arose.  Had Philip of Macedon retained a weapon of javelinic nature, then equine impalement would have been a consideration, but the length of the xyston seems to have been intended to make the question academic.

Definitely agree that training and leadership are vital considerations - the Companions seem to have been among the most highly-trained cavalry in existence, and could be trained in an attack routine against hoplite formations, whereas hoplites would be trained to fight enemy hoplites, perhaps chase lighter infantry, but dealing with cavalry would not be high on their usually limited training agenda, particularly how to deal with a type of cavalry not encountered before.

Hence a lone cavalryman should be able to push though an infantry formation and possibly take out a footman whilst doing so, without needing any mounted colleagues behind him.

So they don't really need a wedge at all?

If they're doing this as a formation then, yes, (hypothetically of course) they would. A Companion going it alone into a mass of hoplites is buying an express ticket to the Elysium Fields since the hoplites are unlikely to feel intimidated and will be able to concentrate on bringing him down. Faced with an approaching mass of horsemen, each hoplite is more likely to concentrate on the horseman in front of him, and do so with defensive outlook, especially if such an attack is not expected. This very much increases the security of each rider.

The value of the wedge would seem to be the disorientation it induces among the individuals in the target formation.  The angular nature of the wedge means that instead of a constant frontage being in action, more and more men are going to be hit by attackers piling in, making it hard for individual opponents to keep 'target orientation' and 'situational awareness' in the face of a constantly changing and developing situation.

One man might make it into an infantry formation, but because every infantryman can concentrate on him and get their awareness pattern focussed on him and what he is doing he will soon be brought down.  With 200 companions funnelling in behind him, there are a couple of hundred additional distractions plus the fact that the wedge itself is ripping into more and more of the defenders' line, so for the defender aligning one's orientational framework in the every-changing situation becomes impossible unless one already has a counter-technique worked out in advance.  This, hoplites conspicuously lacked.

One often overlooked aspect of troop performance is orientation, the ability to comprehend the immediate situation and do something effective about it.  In air fighting, it is always those with 'situational awareness' who kill those without it, and I suspect the same is true on the battlefield.

[Erpingham]

Surely, the advantage of a wedge is concentration of force?  The attacker is concentrated against a small portion of the enemy line, yet deployed in such a way as to prevent easy overlap (both flanks being echeloned back).  The idea that hoplites could be rendered helpless by cavalry approaching in a novel formation still seems a mighty stretch to me.

[Patrick Waterson]

It would not be the approach, but rather the sudden ploughing through the formation that would cause the shock, and in particular the way the expanding contact 'rippled' rather than being a plain, straightforward smash.

[Jim Webster]

It would not be the approach, but rather the sudden ploughing through the formation that would cause the shock, and in particular the way the expanding contact 'rippled' rather than being a plain, straightforward smash.

Hang on
When this started out we weren't charging at speed, we had time for them to kill individual hoplites with well placed spear thrusts.
Now we don't even need the spear, we've no time to use it because we've got sudden ploughing and shock

Jim

[aligern]

Isn't it key that the cavalry can be made to get into contact with a mass of shiny bronze foot-men?
Perhaps the wedge offers an advantage there because in a line all the front rank horses need to be brave enough too plough in, whereas in a wedge you can put the 10 most aggressive horses in the front group??
Roy

[Jim Webster]

Isn't it key that the cavalry can be made to get into contact with a mass of shiny bronze foot-men?
Perhaps the wedge offers an advantage there because in a line all the front rank horses need to be brave enough too plough in, whereas in a wedge you can put the 10 most aggressive horses in the front group??
Roy

But as far as we know there was no attempt to categorise horses by aggression. Xenophon discusses them, we've got documentation from horse inspections. The point of the wedge was defined by the rank of the riders, and the order they appeared in the formation would depend on the order of their files.
I've never come across any way to measure how keen a horse is to smash down people, in fact those that are more likely to do it are those who just charge forward in hysterical panic more scared of the horses on either side of them than the obstacle in front.
An aggressive horse would be more likely to lash out at a neighbouring horse that was encroaching on its personal space.

I can see the advantage of the wedge for movement and turning, and against relatively loose formations such as other mounted troops a wedge led aggressively might be useful, but I'm afraid I've seen no evidence of it being any particular use against infantry.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

It would not be the approach, but rather the sudden ploughing through the formation that would cause the shock, and in particular the way the expanding contact 'rippled' rather than being a plain, straightforward smash.

Hang on
When this started out we weren't charging at speed, we had time for them to kill individual hoplites with well placed spear thrusts.
Now we don't even need the spear, we've no time to use it because we've got sudden ploughing and shock

Jim

Sorry, I was unclear: my comment above was regarding the difficulty of orientation for the defenders, not the effects of armament, which would definitely be present and used.  The point is that time would seem to move slower for the attackers (the Companions), who know exactly what they are doing, but too fast for the defending hoplites to orient themselves with regard to exactly what is going on - at least until they had seen it done a few times, and how many of them had that opportunity?

But as far as we know there was no attempt to categorise horses by aggression. Xenophon discusses them, we've got documentation from horse inspections. The point of the wedge was defined by the rank of the riders, and the order they appeared in the formation would depend on the order of their files.
I've never come across any way to measure how keen a horse is to smash down people, in fact those that are more likely to do it are those who just charge forward in hysterical panic more scared of the horses on either side of them than the obstacle in front.
An aggressive horse would be more likely to lash out at a neighbouring horse that was encroaching on its personal space.

Horses could be trained to do some quite remarkable things, some of which we see in mediaeval and renaissance accounts.  Untrained horses were not used by cavalrymen for the reasons Jim mentions, but selected and trained warhorses would not give such trouble.

Xenophon has this to say about mounts (Cavalry Commander I.5-7):

"While the ranks are filling up, you must see that the horses get enough food to stand hard work, since horses unfit for their work can neither overtake nor escape. You must see that they are docile, because disobedient animals assist the enemy more than their own side. [4] And horses that kick when mounted must be got rid of, for such brutes often do more mischief than the enemy. You must also look after their feet, so that they can be ridden on rough ground, for you know that wherever galloping is painful to them, they are useless. [5]

Having made sure that the horses are in good condition, the next business is to train the men. First they must learn to mount from the spring [i.e. vault], since many before now have owed their lives to that. Secondly, they must practise riding over all sorts of ground, since any kind of country may become the area of war. [6] As soon as they have acquired a firm seat, your next task is to take steps that as many as possible shall be able to throw the javelin when mounted and shall become efficient in all the details of horsemanship.

After that both horses and men must be armed [hoplisteon = must be armoured], so that, while they are themselves thoroughly protected against wounds, they may have the means of inflicting the greatest loss on the enemy. [7] Then you must contrive to make the men obedient: otherwise neither good horses nor a firm seat nor fine armour are of any use."

In essence, look out for those likely to cause problems and get rid of them, then train the rest and their riders.  I do not know if the Macedonians selected horses for aggression (or 'spirit') but they had a weapons system the Athenians did not - the xyston - and their selection criteria may have been slightly different, although the principle of getting rid of potential problem cases would have been retained.

[Jim Webster]

Sorry, I was unclear: my comment above was regarding the difficulty of orientation for the defenders, not the effects of armament, which would definitely be present and used.  The point is that time would seem to move slower for the attackers (the Companions), who know exactly what they are doing, but too fast for the defending hoplites to orient themselves with regard to exactly what is going on - at least until they had seen it done a few times, and how many of them had that opportunity?

Hang on again 
I realise it isn't your point, but someone commented that the wedge would work only if it went down the files, bowling infantry aside. If it hits at anything other than 90 degrees to the front (or to the flank, I suppose you might get the same effect with ranks) it is less effective (at least according to the models that we've had proposed.

So in reality then a wedge would telegraph it's point of contact before the cavalry even hit.

Jim

[Dave Beatty]

I'll be writing an article on this for Slingshot, so correct me now before I embarrass myself in print... but invariably in set piece Macedonian battles the Companion cavalry charged into a gap that was created in the enemy infantry line by the echeloned attack of the phalanx.  The cavalry either hit the enemy infantry in the flank, or penetrated the gap and exploited the enemy tactical rear echelons.  I don't recall ever hearing about a frontal attack against infantry.  The closest to that was Alexander's foolhardy charge across the Granicus against formed Persian heavy/extra heavy cavalry waiting for him atop the opposite embankment and that very nearly got him killed.

[RobertGargan]

I'm inclined to agree with Dave Beatty.  The Macedonian army was dangerous because of the balance in arms - horse and foot.  Pinned by phalangites the enemy was held in play while the lance armed Macedonian horse could take out opposing cavalry and light infantry head on: why risk irreplaceable horse in a frontal attack on spear armed foot?  What little evidence we have portrays Alexander as a master of battle always using the varied parts of the army for the right action on the right terrain. I have to admit I find it difficult to deploy a wargames army to great effect!
Robert Gargan

[Erpingham]

Dave/Robert,

That Macedonian companions could break hoplites frontally using a wedge formation is a speculative theory proposed by Patrick and Justin.  There is no indisputable evidence that companions clashed frontally with hoplites let alone broke them but there is ambiguity, which allows a theory to be proposed.  If you go back a couple of pages, I summarised the two sides to this debate before we hurled ourselves back into it.

In terms of attacking infantry at all, I think Patrick has mentioned a fight with Persian Kardakes, but as these weren't hoplites this has not been revisited.

[Jim Webster]

Indeed as far as I can tell the only battle where there appears to be any suggestion that the Companions charged hoplites frontally is the  Battle of Chaeronea

Dave's analysis seems to sum up the situation.
We have Chaeronea where Alexander 'led' the force which defeated the Theban Sacred Band. From the evidence we have the Sacred Band is as likely to have died with infantry pike wounds in their chests as Alexander is to have led a cavalry charge at them.

We have the fight with the Kardakes which has been somewhat overlooked, mainly because that would probably open a whole new can of worms because then we'd have to agree with what the Kardakes were 

One interesting comment is that if the destroying hoplites with a cavalry charge is true, nobody thought fit to ever mention it. Alexander is the only person in his day who seems to have managed in, but with the true Humility of the Englishman he's to diffident to mention it and his biographers all ignore this unique achievement. 

Jim