Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Justin Swanton]

Justin, I think we approach the problem with irreconcilable pre-conceptions.

For me it's more a question of floating a hypothesis that is on the face of it plausible without being able to verify it by experimentation. We simply don't know how hoplites would react in such a situation, but everything suggests at least that the horses - if they can be trained to it and are not seriously wounded - can push their way through the phalanx via the file spaces.

As regards the two ifs, I can't see why a horse cannot be trained to push through a line of men who give way before it. Get some Macedonian footmen to form up. The horse is led between them and they part to let it through. Do it several times to get the horse used to the idea. Then mount and ride the horse through the footmen who, again, part company to let it through. After the horse is used to that, let the footmen part company more slowly, obliging the horse to push against them a little, then a little more, and so on. The horse is given the idea that a line of men is not a barrier, and can be penetrated with a little effort. Surely that is not an impossible achievement?

As regards serious wounding the horse there are several assumptions being made: a) the hoplite will be sufficiently unfazed by the approaching cavalry to think of targeting anything at all (unlikely); b) he will target the horse rather than the rider (unlikely); c) despite the speed of the horse and the fact that its head is in the way he will succeed in gravely injuring its neck (unlikely).

[Erpingham]

As regards serious wounding the horse there are several assumptions being made: a) the hoplite will be sufficiently unfazed by the approaching cavalry to think of targeting anything at all (unlikely); b) he will target the horse rather than the rider (unlikely); despite the speed of the horse and the fact that its head is in the way he will succeed in gravely injuring its neck (unlikely).

Hence my comment on a priori assumptions.  My answers would be

a) Though fazed, as an elite hoplite, his training is to stand his ground and deal aggressively with his man  His training will prevail over his fear.
b) Almost certain.  What do you call a cavalryman who has lost his horse?  An infantryman.  Unless you want to steal his horse, kill it.
c) This horse is a big target and a hit of some sort is almost inevitable.  There will be an element of luck about where the hit will be but a spear in the chest, throat, mouth or in the eye would cause a serious wound.  A seriously wounded horse will be hard to control and even a great horseman would be at risk of losing his seat, even if the wound to the horse isn't mortal.

As I said, we envisage the scenario, the capabilities of the protagonists and even equine psychology differently.

[Jim Webster]

Justin, I think we approach the problem with irreconcilable pre-conceptions.

For me it's more a question of floating a hypothesis that is on the face of it plausible without being able to verify it by experimentation. We simply don't know how hoplites would react in such a situation, but everything suggests at least that the horses - if they can be trained to it and are not seriously wounded - can push their way through the phalanx via the file spaces.

As regards the two ifs, I can't see why a horse cannot be trained to push through a line of men who give way before it. Get some Macedonian footmen to form up. The horse is led between them and they part to let it through. Do it several times to get the horse used to the idea. Then mount and ride the horse through the footmen who, again, part company to let it through. After the horse is used to that, let the footmen part company more slowly, obliging the horse to push against them a little, then a little more, and so on. The horse is given the idea that a line of men is not a barrier, and can be penetrated with a little effort. Surely that is not an impossible achievement?

The problem is we have no evidence that after three thousand or more years of domestication that anybody has actually done this successfully
It may be they were all to unimaginative to think of it, or it might just be that they were expert horsemen who knew what could and couldn't be done.
So perhaps the professionals who knew these things decided it was an impossible achievement.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Whereas I think you are placing the Companions on a pedestal and ignoring the skills of the hoplites   I have proposed no specific training to face a cavalry wedge, just tried to extrapolate what trained and experienced hoplites might do in these circumstances based on how they fought.  You, however, have proposed a detailed drill, practiced to the point of precision, based on no evidence, contemporary or otherwise.  We both naturally feel our guesses are more plausible or realistic

We can look at hoplites trying to deal with cavalry in earlier contexts: the two examples which stand out are Plataea in 479 BC (Herodotus IX.49, and IX.69) and Delium in 424 BC (Thucydides IV.96).  We can also examine an incident in Xenophon's Hellenica where Agesilaus' Spartans encounter Persian cavalry, and the result is not quite what one would expect (Hellenica IV.1.17-19).  The results are not encouraging for considering what trained and experienced hoplites might do in these circumstances.  An thou be interested, I shall detail these incidents.

Conversely, it is not easy to find any instance in which hoplites show to advantage against cavalry.  I doubt that they would have significantly increased in capability when faced with Companions, given their general lacklustre performance against mere javelin-armed cavalry. 

This harks back to the question I had before, I'll paraphrase it as "who has examples of people riding horseman through formed up heavy infantry from the front"

"Alexander, at the head of his own troops on the right wing, rode at a gallop into the stream.  Rapidity was now all in all: a swift attack would shake the enemy, and the sooner they came to grips the less damage would be done by the Persian archers.  Alexander's judgement was not at fault: the Persian left collapsed the very moment he was on them - a brilliant local success for the picked troops under his personal command." - Arrian II.10

[Duncan Head]

Whether they did overlap shields is another question, of course. But it looks very much as if they could.

Indeed, though 'overlap' is not quite the same as 'lock':

In which case I have no clear idea what you mean by "lock". Though that is probably not really relevant here.

one could not drive a chariot over a hoplite formation however they arranged their shields, whereas this procedure seems to have been a classic test for a testudo;

Apparently one can roll Thracian wagons over it, though.

[Duncan Head]

Interesting article, Duncan. It seems the 'fishscale' formation would correspond to hoplites in close formation - 18" between each file rather than 3'. What is the evidence that hoplites deployed in such a formation and when did they do so?

Read Christopher Matthew's edition of Ailian - I may have mentioned the point in my Slingshot review. He argues that the close one-cubit formation in the tacticians must reflect hoplite drill, because you can't overlap Macedonian shields, but you can overlap Argive aspides. I don't think I believe it, but that's the kind of thinking that informs his "Chinese siege" article.

[Duncan Head]

It is highly unlikely the hoplite will be aiming for the horse, and even if he was, it is unlikely, given the speed of the whole process, that he will be able to seriously injure it. He doesn't have time to deliberately aim for a vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy. Think about it: a wedge of horse are coming at you at a trot or even a canter. What is your reaction? Get your shield up in the way of that sarissa or calmly poke the horse just as your cranium gets pierced?

Crouch to receive cavalry, I think

[Jim Webster]

We can look at hoplites trying to deal with cavalry in earlier contexts: the two examples which stand out are Plataea in 479 BC (Herodotus IX.49, and IX.69) and Delium in 424 BC (Thucydides IV.96).  We can also examine an incident in Xenophon's Hellenica where Agesilaus' Spartans encounter Persian cavalry, and the result is not quite what one would expect (Hellenica IV.1.17-19).  The results are not encouraging for considering what trained and experienced hoplites might do in 

In these quarters the Spartan king passed the winter, collecting supplies for the army either on the spot or by a system of forage. On one of these occasions the troops, who had grown reckless and scornful of the enemy through long immunity from attack, whilst engaged in collecting supplies were scattered over the flat country, when Pharnabazus fell upon them with two scythe-chariots and about four hundred horse. Seeing him thus advancing, the Hellenes ran together, mustering possibly seven hundred men. The Persian did not hesitate, but placing his chariots in front, supported by himself and the cavalry, he gave the command to charge. The scythe-chariots charged and scattered the compact mass, and speedily the cavalry had laid low in the dust about a hundred men, while the rest retreated hastily, under cover of Agesilaus and his hoplites, who were fortunately near.


Several accounts I've read point out that these were probably foraging 'light troops' as the survivors recovered 'under cover of Agesilaus and his hoplites.'

The obvious question is how could Agesilaus and his hoplites provide cover as Hoplites only apparently learned to cope with cavalry after Alexander?

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

It is highly unlikely the hoplite will be aiming for the horse, and even if he was, it is unlikely, given the speed of the whole process, that he will be able to seriously injure it. He doesn't have time to deliberately aim for a vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy. Think about it: a wedge of horse are coming at you at a trot or even a canter. What is your reaction? Get your shield up in the way of that sarissa or calmly poke the horse just as your cranium gets pierced?

Crouch to receive cavalry, I think

That would work against javelin-armed cavalry who get a little too close. I note this extract from the accompanying article:

The Battle of Plataea in 479BC was the last of the Persian invaders, a strong hold that needed to be taken. Many have questioned what actually went on at Plataea during the night when every Greek contingent moved. The Greek units were prompted to move because of Persian cavalry attacks, the Megarians nearly had there whole force annihilated but were reinforced by Athenian hoplites and archers who saved them and hit Masistius (Persian Cavalry leader) which brought him to the ground and subsequently his death. Greek cavalry was almost none existent so hoplites always feared a cavalry unit could quickly flank them and attack there exposed lines. As the picture to the right shows, Persian cavalry was not refined enough to take on a prepared hoplite who had a far longer spear unlike the cavalry man who had an exhaustible weapon in the form of a javelin and no stirrups to hang on to the horse, meaning charges were impossible.

[Duncan Head]

And indeed it would work against lancer cavalry as well. Blocking the lance with your shield while aiming your own spear at the horse would be quite natural.

Incidentally there are two representations of hoplites confronting cavalry at http://www.sikyon.com/athens/ahist_eg02.html, one Persian seal and one Greek vase. Both use a similar underarm thrust.

[Justin Swanton]

And indeed it would work against lancer cavalry as well. Blocking the lance with your shield while aiming your own spear at the horse would be quite natural.

Incidentally there are two representations of hoplites confronting cavalry at http://www.sikyon.com/athens/ahist_eg02.html, one Persian seal and one Greek vase. Both use a similar underarm thrust.

The hoplite in these three cases seems to be holding his shield away from his body, i.e. partially opening his shield guard in order to give his spear free play. If I'm not mistaken this not his regular disposition in a phalanx, where he keeps his shield close in front of his body and uses his spear overarm. I suspect that holding a 3' wide shield against the body prevents easy use of a spear underarm, but this needs verification.

If the hoplite is being charged by cavalry whose lances outreach his spear, it would be natural for him to close his shield guard and raise the shield to protect his face. Presuming that his spear - held overarm - is pointed at a vulnerable spot on the horse, what does the Companion do? Simple - he targets the shield. In my reconstruction diagram the cavalry lance will reach the hoplite whilst the latter's spearpoint is still a foot or more away from the front of the horse's head, i.e. several feet from the horse's neck. The lance will hit the shield, knocking the hoplite backwards and sending his spear all over the place. The broken lances mentioned earlier imply that the Companion could hit his target with considerable force, enough to break a thick shaft.

The hoplite, rammed against the man behind him, would likewise send him spinning. With the two front ranks neutralised the Companion is safe - the other ranks don't even have their spears at the ready and will have no time to do so.

For a javelin-armed cavalryman the situation is very different. The only way he can reach the hoplite is by ramming him with his horse, and the hoplite is precisely ready for that.

[Jim Webster]

These aren't wooden dolls.
The Hoplon isn't a flat plank shield, it's curved and if your companion (who somehow has magicked an unwilling horse into charging a wall) doesn't hit it absolutely square (or even if he does and the hoplite slightly shifts his arm) then the spear will skid across the surface and in the 100th of a second he has before his horse comes in range of the spear, there's damn all he can do about it.

Jim

[Mark G]

In which case I have no clear idea what you mean by "lock".

nor I,
overlapping shields to me are locked.  dismissing that for pedantic reasons misses the point, which is - they do not present any gaps, which has been the basis of much of the 'yes they can' argument lately.

[Patrick Waterson]

In which case I have no clear idea what you mean by "lock". Though that is probably not really relevant here.

True; it was our Mr Grindlay's usage. 

one could not drive a chariot over a hoplite formation however they arranged their shields, whereas this procedure seems to have been a classic test for a testudo;

Apparently one can roll Thracian wagons over it, though.

An observation which is both accurate and misleading:

" ... any sections ... which were caught in the narrow pass were to form in the closest possible order, such men as were able lying prone on the ground with shields locked together [sugkleisai es akribes tas aspidas = put their shields together precisely] above their bodies, so as to give the heavy wagons, as they careered down the hill, a chance to bounce over them without doing any harm ... the carts passed harmlessly over the shields [huper tōn aspidōn epikulistheisai oliga eblapsan = over the shields they rolled with only slight effect]." - Arrian I.1.9-10

This impromptu self-protection system worked because the phalangites were lying down.

Several accounts I've read point out that these were probably foraging 'light troops' as the survivors recovered 'under cover of Agesilaus and his hoplites.'

Xenophon simply says 'stratiotes' (soldiers).

The obvious question is how could Agesilaus and his hoplites provide cover as Hoplites only apparently learned to cope with cavalry after Alexander?

My basic point was that even before Philip, Alexander and long thrusting cavalry armament hoplites had problems coping with cavalry.  This does not mean they were totally vulnerable in all circumstances, rather that they were surprisingly vulnerable in certain circumstances.

Hoplites seem never to have learned to really cope with cavalry (one notes how as a troop type they faded out after Alexander, though not necessarily for this reason), but javelin-armed cavalry had problems in frontal close fighting against hoplites which is why Philip of Macedon introduced the sarissa and xyston.  Duncan's pics of hoplites receiving javelin cavalry are interesting as they show two things: 1) how the long hoplite spear confers a reach advantage and 2) how natural a target the head is for a horseman.

And indeed it would work against lancer cavalry as well. Blocking the lance with your shield while aiming your own spear at the horse would be quite natural.

The pictures Duncan references are interesting.

Observe the Spartan receiving cavalry.  Rather than impale the horse, he is definitely aiming at the rider.  His spear seems to be held well behind the point of balance, which would do nothing for the point's controllability (unless that butt spike is a lot heavier than it looks).  Up against a xyston-armed cavalryman he would currently be on the ground nursing a faceful of lance-point or lying dazed by a whack from the rim of his interposed shield.

Now consider the 'Persian rider'.  Note how the face is a natural target for the horseman and once again the infantryman's spear point is aimed at the rider, not the horse.  Instead of aiming 'quite naturally' for the horse he puts his life on the line trying to hit the rider.

Finally we have the vase image.  Once again the infantryman's spear seems to be going past the horse in the general direction of the rider - details are not easy to make out at this size, but the horse does not seem to have been discommoded.  The rider is, intriguingly, holding a weapon with a butt-spike which looks longer than the usual Persian palta (short throwing-spear), and both he and his mount are remarkably small, so that his eye level is only just above that of the infantryman.

Put together, these three pictures suggest that individual infantrymen who may or may not have been in formation used their spear held underarm to try and deal with the rider, but not the horse.

If this is representative of what the Sacred Band may have done at Chaeronea, or other hoplites elsewhere, then I may have to revise my thinking that Greek hoplites lacked any form of anti-cavalry drill, and instead point out that the anti-cavalry posture shown would have been ineffective against xyston- or sarissa-armed Macedonians on account of the Macedonians' greater reach combined with superior training.  The hoplites would end up just as dead: having a drill that does not work is almost worse than having no drill at all.

My respects to Duncan for finding those pictures. 

[Jim Webster]

Several accounts I've read point out that these were probably foraging 'light troops' as the survivors recovered 'under cover of Agesilaus and his hoplites.'

Xenophon simply says 'stratiotes' (soldiers).

The obvious question is how could Agesilaus and his hoplites provide cover as Hoplites only apparently learned to cope with cavalry after Alexander?

My basic point was that even before Philip, Alexander and long thrusting cavalry armament hoplites had problems coping with cavalry.  This does not mean they were totally vulnerable in all circumstances, rather that they were surprisingly vulnerable in certain circumstances.

Hoplites seem never to have learned to really cope with cavalry (one notes how as a troop type they faded out after Alexander, though not necessarily for this reason), but javelin-armed cavalry had problems in frontal close fighting against hoplites which is why Philip of Macedon introduced the sarissa and xyston.  Duncan's pics of hoplites receiving javelin cavalry are interesting as they show two things: 1) how the long hoplite spear confers a reach advantage and 2) how natural a target the head is for a horseman.

They may indeed be called soldiers, but hoplites are mentioned separately. It the first group were hoplites then surely the others would be 'the other hoplites' or somesuch. Certainly you cannot assume the troops broken by the chariots were hoplites. Also it's hardly a good example of the ability of cavalry to charge infantry when they have to follow scythed chariots in

As for the surprising vulnerability, examples of cavalry on their own breaking hoplites would be nice. So far the only one we have is Chaeronea where there is no evidence that it was cavalry that did the damage
As for being a troop type that faded out, they seem to have outlived the shieldless companion style cavalryman.
As for Philip of Macedon introducing the xyston so his cavalry could fight hoplites, given that the only example of cavalry fighting hoplites on their own is the one that you are using Philip issuing the xyston to support, we have a circular argument here.

Jim