Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Duncan Head]

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.

Shall I just say that this is a somewhat controversial question, and leave it at that?   

[Duncan Head]

Observe the Spartan receiving cavalry.  Rather than impale the horse, he is definitely aiming at the rider.

Or else he was aimning at the horse, but the animal has got past the point.

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).

Hard to see the butt spike. But I suspect that the spear was always held at the point of balance, which depending on the weight of the spike and any taper in the shaft might be well back of the mid-point. We needn't suspect the artist of perfect geometry, especially if the intention was to show the spearpoint threatening the rider.

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.

Up against a xyston-armed cavalryman the point of the xyston would not hit the angled shield squarely, and so would probably skid off the polished bronze facing.

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.

Bear in mind that this representation, unlike the others, is Persian and hence "on the side of" the horseman, and may, again unlike the others, be intended to show an unsuccessful hoplite.

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 hoplite's spear seem to me to be going into the horsde's neck, but I agree that it is almost impossible to be sure.

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.

I suspect she (for I believe her to be an Amazon) is carrying the sort of spear "like a vine-pole" that Xenophon so disapproves of: a thrusting-weapon with butt-spike, but somewhat shorter and much flimsier than the xyston.

[Erpingham]

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.

If what these hoplites are doing represents an accurate example of what hoplites in formation would do, then I withdraw my assertion that the obvious thing to aim at is the horse.  However, as Alexander lost his horse fighting hoplites, not everyone was paying attention on the drill field It does, I think, nail the idea that hoplites will be so surprised being attacked by cavalry that they will stand still and allow themselves to be killed.

if we look at the images, we have a single figure represented.  It is, I believe, a common classical convention to show individual duelling more than group combat.  So what other formation members are doing is unclear.  The stooping thrust would make it hard to overlap shields.  However, we don't know how many ranks they would be in (four to eight? - Arrian fighting the Alans and the Byzantine manuals suggest the higher end of this range, but medieval infantry might fight cavalry in as few as two or three ranks).

If they are following later (republican Roman and later) practice, the first few ranks crouch and later ranks support by fighting over them - in the Roman case perhaps by throwing pila , Byzantines throwing or thrusting their longer weapons.   This would be different again to Justin's suggestion that only the first two ranks used weapons.

[Justin Swanton]

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

The hoplite shield was substantially made of wood, about 2cm thick in the centre thinning out to about 1cm thick at the edge, and covered (sometimes) with a thin layer of beaten bronze on its outer face. A lancepoint hitting it at speed would in all likelihood penetrate the bronze and wedge itself into the wood (or punch right through) rather than 'skid across the surface'.

[Patrick Waterson]

Observe the Spartan receiving cavalry.  Rather than impale the horse, he is definitely aiming at the rider.

Or else he was aiming at the horse, but the animal has got past the point.

If he was, this suggests that the horse would not be quite so easy a target as has been suggested.  Granted we may need to allow for artistic approximations and imperfections, but I would have thought that if any of our sample hoplites were trying to put spearpoints in horses then at least one of the artists should show what happens when such an attempt is successful.

Out of interest, what would happen if the attempt were successful?  Would we have equus mortuus travelling 30 yards with a hoplite attached?  Or what would happen to the momentum of the now-defunct animal?  This may have been a consideration in the apparent tendency of hoplites to go for the rider.

Up against a xyston-armed cavalryman the point of the xyston would not hit the angled shield squarely, and so would probably skid off the polished bronze facing.

Not so sure about this, given that a steel point with a good deal of force and plenty of inertia would be pushing the shield rim against an occupied helmet: I think the force would transmit from point to shield rim and shield rim to shield user, and as the latter went down then the point would slide out of the indentation.  Not sure how much a xyston weighed but 10 lbs seems a possible estimate (the Wikipedia sarissa entry puts a 15' sarissa at 12 lbs and an 18' sarissa at 14.5 lbs) and this would not be deflected as easily as, say, an arrow - it would be more like a ten-pound object hitting at speed with a fair bit of force behind it.

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

A fair observation.  I shall give you that one.

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

Not true: check out Herodotus IX.69 Thucydides IV.96.  If they are not handy, ask me to quote.

As for being a troop type that faded out, they seem to have outlived the shieldless companion style cavalryman.

Actually they seem to have died out rather quickly and been replaced by shielded cavalry on the Italian model.

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.

Please read my earlier posts.    Macedonian cavalry definitely fought hoplites at the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, and from all the indications seems to have fought them at Chaeronea.

[Duncan Head]

Up against a xyston-armed cavalryman the point of the xyston would not hit the angled shield squarely, and so would probably skid off the polished bronze facing.

Not so sure about this, given that a steel point with a good deal of force and plenty of inertia would be pushing the shield rim against an occupied helmet: I think the force would transmit from point to shield rim and shield rim to shield user, and as the latter went down then the point would slide out of the indentation.

Sorry, when did you establish that the hoplite would rest his shield against his head if he raised it? None of the illustrations are so doing.

Please read my earlier posts.    Macedonian cavalry definitely fought hoplites at the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, and from all the indications seems to have fought them at Chaeronea.

Please read Jim's post. He said "the only example of cavalry fighting hoplites on their own". That rules out the combined assault at Granicus.

Cavalry definitely did fight hoplites at the Granicus, though not alone; fought somebody at Issos, but we don't know how the somebodies were equipped; may have fought hoplites at Gaugamela, but no source says so; and Chaironeia is still not an area of general agreement.

So basically, Jim's right.

[Duncan Head]

Incidentally, what do we make of the Bursa relief on p.22 of Sekunda's Osprey Army of Alexander? Cavalry in Boiotian helmets with what looks like Persian saddle-cloths attacking infantry with hoplite shields: Sekunda suggests it "must date to the reign of Alexander or shortly thereafter". The hoplite shield is not raised as prominently as in other artworks.

[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

The hoplite shield was substantially made of wood, about 2cm thick in the centre thinning out to about 1cm thick at the edge, and covered (sometimes) with a thin layer of beaten bronze on its outer face. A lancepoint hitting it at speed would in all likelihood penetrate the bronze and wedge itself into the wood (or punch right through) rather than 'skid across the surface'.

which in the 100th of a second between your spear hitting his shield and his spear hitting your horse in the face, is not a problem. You've got a panicking blinded horse and he's got a turned round a bit.
But actually you're spared this because your horse is too smart to go here anyway

Jim

[Jim Webster]

So basically, Jim's right.

The law of averages indicates that in an infinite universe this must happen occasionally but I don't try to make a habit of it ;-)

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

My overall impression is that we have all pushed our lines of argumentation about as far as they can go. What we really need now are some mounted and hoplite reenactors weary of this vale of tears to  confirm who is right.

(or perhaps Patrick and I could hop on horses whilst everyone else grabs an aspis?  )

[Patrick Waterson]

Sorry, when did you establish that the hoplite would rest his shield against his head if he raised it? None of the illustrations are so doing.

Again accurately observed, but misleading.  If the hoplite interposes his shield between his head and an oncoming xyston point, much as he might do against a flying javelin, he will rapidly discover the difference as the impact force behind the xyston smashes his shield rim against his face or forehead.  This is basic mechanics: we are dealing with a moving cavalryman ...

Please read my earlier posts.    Macedonian cavalry definitely fought hoplites at the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, and from all the indications seems to have fought them at Chaeronea.

Please read Jim's post. He said "the only example of cavalry fighting hoplites on their own". That rules out the combined assault at Granicus.

Strictly speaking, the only example I have found of cavalry fighting hoplites 'on their own' (assuming we take this to mean just cavalry on one side and just hoplites on the other with nobody else in sight) is in Herodotus IX.69.  As the point of this thread is to evaluate whether Macedonian cavalry could have defeated hoplites in a frontal attack, noting that it was customary for Companions to work in close association with missile troops, all we can establish from instances of cavalry fighting hoplites 'on their own' is that in Herodotus IX.69 the hoplites definitely came off worse.

"However, when the Megarians and Philasians had come near the enemy, the Theban horsemen (whose captain was Asopodorus son of Timander) caught sight of them approaching in haste and disorder, and rode at them; in this attack they trampled six hundred of them, and pursued and drove the rest to Cithaeron." - op cit.

We note that the hoplites were 'approaching in haste and disorder', but were they so hopelessly disarrayed that they could not have formed up in the presence of cavalry?  For what it it worth, this incident fulfils the stated but barren objective of a case in which hoplites alone are defeated by cavalry alone.

Cavalry definitely did fight hoplites at the Granicus, though not alone; fought somebody at Issos, but we don't know how the somebodies were equipped; may have fought hoplites at Gaugamela, but no source says so; and Chaironeia is still not an area of general agreement.

They fought hoplites at Issus when Alex turned from his pursuit of Darius to help his phalanx; they had to fight hoplites at Gaugamela because in order to get at Darius from the flank of his left centre they had to penetrate the hoplites on the left of his bodyguard.  The fact that they also went through the Kardakes at Issus like a knife through butter does not change the fact that even if we leave aside Chaeronea the Companions fought against hoplites in open battle more often than against any other single troop type during Alexander's military career as far as Babylon.  At the Granicus, they fought 'standard' Persian cavalry - and hoplites.  At Issus, they fought Kardakes, Darius' bodyguard - and hoplites.  At Gaugamela, they fought hoplites and Darius' bodyguard.

What we can say is that in each battle Alexander led Companions into the attack against hoplites with perfect equanimity and successful results.  The Granicus is the only case where we can be certain the attack was fully frontal, as at Issus and Gaugamela his position gave him a flank to attack, and hoplites facing to flank would lack their customary file reassurance and support.  Also at Issus the hoplites were definitely engaged to their front by the phalanx and at Gaugamela they may have been.  Since the evidence on the subject of Companions and hoplites is perforce circumstantial, we have to see which way the circumstantial evidence points, and I have seen nothing about it that would point away from Alexander leading a wedge of sarissa- or xyston-equipped cavalry through the Sacred Band at Chaeronea.

My overall impression is that we have all pushed our lines of argumentation about as far as they can go.

Probably true, but we have left unexplored the alternative hypothesis of Alexander leading infantry against the Sacred Band at Chaeronea, which I feel does need to be evaluated against the hints from our sources.  In essence, we have two candidates for Alexander's attack on the Sacred Band: lance-armed cavalry in wedge or pike-armed infantry in line.  So which is it, and why?

I suggest that anyone who wishes to maintain that Alexander led infantry against the sacred Band at Chaeronea explain how this would accord with the circumstantial information in our sources.

[Duncan Head]

Sorry, when did you establish that the hoplite would rest his shield against his head if he raised it? None of the illustrations are so doing.

Again accurately observed, but misleading.  If the hoplite interposes his shield between his head and an oncoming xyston point, much as he might do against a flying javelin, he will rapidly discover the difference as the impact force behind the xyston smashes his shield rim against his face or forehead.  This is basic mechanics: we are dealing with a moving cavalryman ...

Or the xyston breaks, or the point glances off the curved surface of the shield, or the shock forces the shield-arm down and to the side, or the horse shies away from the impact at the last minute... driving the shield against the head is one of several possible outcomes, and I'm not sure it's the most likely.

Probably true, but we have left unexplored the alternative hypothesis of Alexander leading infantry against the Sacred Band at Chaeronea, which I feel does need to be evaluated against the hints from our sources.  In essence, we have two candidates for Alexander's attack on the Sacred Band: lance-armed cavalry in wedge or pike-armed infantry in line.  So which is it, and why?

I suggest that anyone who wishes to maintain that Alexander led infantry against the sacred Band at Chaeronea explain how this would accord with the circumstantial information in our sources.

Actually I think we have at lest three scenarios to be considered:
1. Alexander leads sarissa-armed cavalry against the front of the Sacred Band
2. Alexander leads sarissa-armed infantry against the front of the Sacred Band
3. Sarissa-armed infantry engage the front of the Sacred Band while Alexander's charge is elsewhere - the Hammond scenario of the "charge into a gap" into the Theban flank which is probably still the most widely-retailed reconstruction

My own view is, still, that the sarisai mentioned at Chaironeia are overwhelmingly more likely to be infantry than cavalry weapons, and therefore either 2 or 3 fits the evidence far better than 1. I'm finding Patrick's arguments and Justin's reconstructions very interesting as an exploration of how Macedonian cavalry might have intended to tackle hoplites - the tactics they would have used in the charge at Granicus that got Alexander's horse killed under him, for instance - but much less convincing as an account of what might have happened at Chaironeia.

[Justin Swanton]

Or the xyston breaks, or the point glances off the curved surface of the shield, or the shock forces the shield-arm down and to the side, or the horse shies away from the impact at the last minute... driving the shield against the head is one of several possible outcomes, and I'm not sure it's the most likely.

Whilst we're on the subject....

1. The hoplite raises his shield to protect his head a second or two before the Companion charges home.

2. The Companion has time to adjust his aim. He targets the approximate centre of shield which is now roughly level with the base of the hoplite's neck.

3. The speed and force of the lance thrust do not leave the lancepoint the opportunity of sliding off the shield. It penetrates it to a greater or lesser degree (pretty much as the cataphract's kontos later did).

4. Either the lancepoint passes right through the shield, knocking the infantryman back, or it doesn't, slamming the shield against the infantryman and knocking him back. Both ways, he finds himself flat on his back.

5. The hoplite's spear, which was poised to strike the horse, goes wildly off aim as the hoplite tumbles. In other words, the cavalry lance sufficiently outreaches the hoplite spear to deny it any chance of getting near the horse. Add another foot to the lances in my diagrams, or chop the hoplite spears by a foot, or both.

6. As he is bowled backwards, the hoplite knocks over the man behind him. That takes out the two ranks whose spears were at the ready, leaving the Companion relatively safe as he passes through the rest of the phalanx.

[Erpingham]

Justin, you're doing it again.  Time in this case is linear - it doesn't move at different pace for different people at different times.  The hoplite moving his shield to deflect the xyston is happening at the same time as the cavalryman is reacting and trying to move his spear.  The collision of the hoplite spear with the horse happens a fraction of a second afterwards, then the second hoplite's spear hits the horse, then the cavalryman hits the first hoplite (who may by this point be falling backwards into the second hoplite).  All this happens in less than a second.

[Patrick Waterson]

Justin, you're doing it again.  Time in this case is linear - it doesn't move at different pace for different people at different times.

Funnily enough, both in my experience and in that of several people's war memoirs, it does.  I do not try to explain it, just to note that it actually does happen.

The hoplite moving his shield to deflect the xyston is happening at the same time as the cavalryman is reacting and trying to move his spear.  The collision of the hoplite spear with the horse happens a fraction of a second afterwards, then the second hoplite's spear hits the horse, then the cavalryman hits the first hoplite (who may by this point be falling backwards into the second hoplite).  All this happens in less than a second.

I think we do need to be careful about assuming that a Greek hoplite would aim for the horse - see the artistic examples Duncan produced.  It is tempting to read later anti-cavalry tactics into the hoplite's repertoire, but perhaps not appropriate.

What may also be relevant is that the Companion would be trained for this situation whereas a trained hoplite would be using an anti-cavalry drill based on traditional javelin-armed cavalry, at least at Chaeronea.