Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Patrick Waterson]

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

Fair enough.  We may as well begin by summarising the meagre source evidence.

Exhibit 1: Plutarch's Alexander.

He was also present at Chaeroneia and took part in the battle against the Greeks, and he is said to have been the first to break the ranks of the Sacred Band of the Thebans. - Plutarch, Alexander 9.2

(en de Khairōneia tēs pros tous ' Hellēnas makhēs parōn meteskhe, kai legetai prōtos enseisai tō hierō lokhō tōn Thēbaiōn)


Exhibit 2: Plutarch's Pelopidas.

It is said, moreover, that the band was never beaten, until the battle of Chaeroneia; and when, after the battle, Philip was surveying the dead, and stopped at the place where the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the long spears [tr. adds: of his phalanx], with their armour, and mingled one with another, he was amazed, and on learning that this was the band of lovers and beloved, burst into tears and said: 'Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful.' - Plutarch, Pelopidas 18.5

(legetai de diameinai mekhri tēs en Khairōneia makhēs aēttēton: hōs de meta tēn makhēn ephorōn tous nekrous ho Philippos estē kata touto to khōrion en hō sunetugkhane keisthai tous triakosious, enantious apēntēkotas tais sarisais hapantas en tois hoplois kai met' allēlōn anamemigmenous, thaumasanta kai puthomenon hōs ho tōn erastōn kai tōn erōmenōn houtos eiē lokhos, dakrusai kai eipein 'apolointo kakōs hoi toutous ti poiein ē paskhein aiskhron huponoountes.')

Exhibit 3: Diodorus' History

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. [4] As the same success was won by his companions, gaps in the front were constantly opened. 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. - Diodorus XVI.86.2-4

(genomenēs de makhēs karteras epi polun khronon kai pollōn piptontōn par' amphoterois mekhri men tinos ho agōn amphidoxoumenas eikhe tas elpidas tēs nikēs.

3 meta de tauta tou Alexandrou philotimoumenou tō patri tēn idian andragathian endeixasthai kai philotimias huperbolēn ouk apoleipontos, homoiōs de kai pollōn autō sunagōnizomenōn andrōn agathōn prōtos to sunekhes tēs tōn polemiōn taxeōs errēxe kai pollous katabalōn kateponei tous kath' hauton tetagmenous. 4 to d' auto kai tōn parastatōn autō poiēsantōn to sunekhes aiei tēs taxeōs parerrēgnuto. pollōn de sōreuomenōn nekrōn hoi peri ton Alexandron prōtoi biasamenoi tous kath' hautous etrepsanto. meta de tauta kai ho basileus autos prokinduneuōn kai tēs nikēs tēn epigraphēn oud' autō parakhōrōn Alexandrō to men prōton exeōse tē bia tous antitetagmenous, epeita de kai pheugein sunanagkasas aitios egeneto tēs nikēs.)

Diodorus' "hotly contested for a long time and many fell on both sides" appears regularly in his accounts of battles: one is not sure how far to take it seriously, as he uses it in instances (e.g. when Alexander fights Darius' bodyguard at Issus) when Arrian gives the impression of an action over quite swiftly.  If it is a material observation as opposed to a rhetorical flourish, then it may be noteworthy the Alexander's and Philip's contributions do not take place until after this "hotly contested for a long time" phase, suggesting that whatever they were leading from the front may not have been in action at the outset of the battle.

We may note that while the translator is quite definite about "rupturing the solid front of the enemy line."  Diodorus' Greek says: "to sunekhes tēs tōn polemiōn taxeōs errēxe," which strictly means rupturing the continuous or conjoined enemy line.  I think the translator has the correct sense: if so, then Alexander was attacking the front of the Theban formation, not its side.

There is more to consider, perhaps in a later post.  Effective analysis should also consider what we know of Macedonian tactics and techniques from other engagements, some of which we might validly read back into the battle at Chaeronea (and some perhaps not?), and an assessment of both armies' composition and likely deployment, which would have the advantage of indicating whether either side could noticeably outflank the other and also which army had a preponderance in cavalry and so might have some free to act against enemy infantry.

Then we might be able to compare source statements with reconstructions involving Alexander leading an infantry attack, a cavalry attack and a frontal infantry attack with a cavalry flank attack.

I suspect however that if we are going to do this we should do so in a different thread, as the aim of this one was to evaluate whether Macedonian cavalry could operate with success against close order infantry, and it seems to the main proponents in this thread that we have gone about as far as we can on this particular subject.

[Duncan Head]

We may as well begin by summarising the meagre source evidence.

Oh, let's not. We've done all this before.

I am just reminded (while reading the new Arrian translation) that the Macedonian cavalry are described as fighting with javelins against the Thracians in 335 (I.2.6). I think that the first description of any sort of long cavalry lance is at the Graneikos the next year. Clearly, then, lances were first issued in the winter of 335-4 in preparation for the invasion of Asia, so Alexander cannot have led lance-armed cavalry during his father's reign.

, I think, although I am not sure that this theory can be disproved.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am just reminded (while reading the new Arrian translation) that the Macedonian cavalry are described as fighting with javelins against the Thracians in 335 (I.2.6). I think that the first description of any sort of long cavalry lance is at the Graneikos the next year. Clearly, then, lances were first issued in the winter of 335-4 in preparation for the invasion of Asia, so Alexander cannot have led lance-armed cavalry during his father's reign.

, I think, although I am not sure that this theory can be disproved.

I am.   The Greek for Arrian I.2.6 reads:

"tēn de phalagga tōn pezōn kai tēn allēn hippon pro tēs phalaggos parateinas kata mesous epēge. kai este men akrobolismos par' hekaterōn ēn, hoi Triballoi ou meion eikhon: hōs de hē te phalagx puknē eneballen es autous errōmenōs kai hoi hippeis ouk akontismō eti, all' autois tois hippois ōthountes allē kai allē prosepipton, tote dē etrapēsan dia tou napous eis ton potamon."

The Penguin translator rendered the bold section as:

"and the cavalry, instead of shooting at them, had actually begun to ride them down in a fierce assault all over the field," which suggests the Thracians expected cavalry to shoot at them but were surprised when it rode them down in melee instead.  Ousontes (from otheo), translated here as 'rode down', seems (in the Perseus lexicon entry) to have the sense of pushing or thrusting, which - if this was Arrian's actual intended meaning - would seem to be good evidence for the Macedonian cavalry being lance-armed at this juncture.

What do you make of this?

[Prufrock]

Here's an alternative reading.

Exhibit 1: Plutarch's Alexander.

He was also present at Chaeroneia and took part in the battle against the Greeks, and he is said to have been the first to break the ranks of the Sacred Band of the Thebans. - Plutarch, Alexander 9.2

(en de Khairōneia tēs pros tous ' Hellēnas makhēs parōn meteskhe, kai legetai prōtos enseisai tō hierō lokhō tōn Thēbaiōn)

Alexander was the first man in all of history to break the famed Sacred Band, which shows that he was something special.

Exhibit 2: Plutarch's Pelopidas.

It is said, moreover, that the band was never beaten, until the battle of Chaeroneia; and when, after the battle, Philip was surveying the dead, and stopped at the place where the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the long spears [tr. adds: of his phalanx], with their armour, and mingled one with another, he was amazed, and on learning that this was the band of lovers and beloved, burst into tears and said: 'Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful.' - Plutarch, Pelopidas 18.5

(legetai de diameinai mekhri tēs en Khairōneia makhēs aēttēton: hōs de meta tēn makhēn ephorōn tous nekrous ho Philippos estē kata touto to khōrion en hō sunetugkhane keisthai tous triakosious, enantious apēntēkotas tais sarisais hapantas en tois hoplois kai met' allēlōn anamemigmenous, thaumasanta kai puthomenon hōs ho tōn erastōn kai tōn erōmenōn houtos eiē lokhos, dakrusai kai eipein 'apolointo kakōs hoi toutous ti poiein ē paskhein aiskhron huponoountes.')

The Sacred Band had never before been beaten, but at Chaeroneia they died where they had stood, facing the long spears of the Macedonians.  This moved Philip to observe that while certain people might have thought that a unit comprised of 150 pairs of lovers was a naff concept anyone who was actually there could see that they were men of great bravery.

Exhibit 3: Diodorus' History

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. [4] As the same success was won by his companions, gaps in the front were constantly opened. 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. - Diodorus XVI.86.2-4

(genomenēs de makhēs karteras epi polun khronon kai pollōn piptontōn par' amphoterois mekhri men tinos ho agōn amphidoxoumenas eikhe tas elpidas tēs nikēs.

3 meta de tauta tou Alexandrou philotimoumenou tō patri tēn idian andragathian endeixasthai kai philotimias huperbolēn ouk apoleipontos, homoiōs de kai pollōn autō sunagōnizomenōn andrōn agathōn prōtos to sunekhes tēs tōn polemiōn taxeōs errēxe kai pollous katabalōn kateponei tous kath' hauton tetagmenous. 4 to d' auto kai tōn parastatōn autō poiēsantōn to sunekhes aiei tēs taxeōs parerrēgnuto. pollōn de sōreuomenōn nekrōn hoi peri ton Alexandron prōtoi biasamenoi tous kath' hautous etrepsanto. meta de tauta kai ho basileus autos prokinduneuōn kai tēs nikēs tēn epigraphēn oud' autō parakhōrōn Alexandrō to men prōton exeōse tē bia tous antitetagmenous, epeita de kai pheugein sunanagkasas aitios egeneto tēs nikēs.)

Alexander was precocious and eager for glory, and at Chaeroneia his men broke through the enemy line, forcing them to flee.  He himself took part in the fighting, as did his companions.  Philip however would have no one claim the victory from him, and was the one who finally put the enemy to flight.

Alternative conclusion: these sections emphasise both Alexander's early ability and his desire for glory.  As an example, at Chaeroneia his command was successful in defeating the enemy that opposed him. This section of the enemy line included the famed Theban Sacred Band, who did not flee with the rest of the wing but were cut down where they stood. As they had never before been defeated, this is a striking indication of Alexander's leadership ability and foreshadows his later success.

Attempts to get much greater detail out of these accounts risks selective reading of figurative or formulaic language as factual description to support one's own case.  Diodorus mentions the enemy fleeing after Alexander's breakthrough, yet others tell us that the Sacred Band did not flee, so right away we have a conflict between which parts to take figuratively - or as a general account - and which to take literally.  Once we start making these kinds of interpretative choices our arguments must inevitably become subject to bias.

Combine this with a lack of unambiguous evidence for cavalry being capable of / trained to charge formed and disciplined heavy infantry frontally and we're not left with much on which to base a positive argument!

IMHO, of course.

[Justin Swanton]

Justin, you're doing it again.

I'm somehow reminded of Yzma in The Emperor's New Groove when Kuzco catches her sitting on his throne ruling the empire behind his back:
"Doing what?"

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

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.

To rerun it, the hoplite lifts his shield a second or two before impact. The Companion, whose lance is already aimed at the hoplite's head, needs only to lower it slightly to target the centre of the shield.  The effect of impact is immediate: the hoplite is bowled over backwards at the speed of the advancing horse. As the hoplite's body moves, his spear aim goes wild. If his spearpoint by some chance contacts the horse it will have no force behind it as the hoplite is either dead, unconscious or has his arms behind him to brace for the fall. At worst the horse might be slightly injured.

The second hoplite is knocked off balance by the first well before his spear is in striking range of the  horse.

[Mark G]

Ignoring decades of fighting Persians, that is.
I asked very early on about changes to Greek armies, yet we still seem to only acknowledge a single centuries old model of one type of Greek soldier.

[Duncan Head]

What do you make of this?

I think it misses "eti". This is a particle that usually has an implication of time, so "kai hoi hippeis ouk akontismō eti" means something like "and the cavalry were no longer shooting javelins at them". There was an initial missile phase, akrobolismos,  before the pushing, which "eti" implies that the cavalry wwre taking their part in.

And I think otheo is used in too wide a range of contexts to draw any very firm conclusion about what it implies this time.

And I think you are giving "disproved" a looser meaning than I would.

[Justin Swanton]

Here are the uses of ἔτι taken from the Liddell and Scott lexicon on Perseus. If used in the sense of time with a negative it means 'no longer'. But used in the sense of degree it can mean 'not...furthermore'.

I.of Time,

1.of the Present, yet, as yet, still, Lat. adhuc, Il., attic; cf. οὐκέτι.

2.of the Past, mostly with imperf., ἀήθεσσον γὰρ ἔτι they were yet unaccustomed, Il.; προορωμένοις ἔτι Thuc.

3.of the Future, yet, further, ἄλγε᾽ ἔδωκεν, ἠδ᾽ ἔτι δώσει Il.:—also hereafter, Aesch., Soph.

[4. with a neg., no longer, "οὐδὲ . . ἔ. παρέμειναν" D.H.5.46; v. οὐκέτι, μηκέτι.] - got this from a different source.

II.of Degree,

yet, still, besides, further, moreover, Lat. praeterea, insuper, Hom., etc.; ἔτι δέ and besides, nay more, Thuc.

2.often to strengthen a comp., ἔτι μᾶλλον yet more, Il.; μᾶλλον ἔτι Od.; ἔτι πλέον Hdt., etc.

3.with the posit., ἔτι ἄνω yet higher up, Xen.

Am I correct in surmising there is a possible ambiguity in this passage? The context appears to suggest that the missile skirmishing was done by archers and slingers only, with the cavalry devoted exclusively to charging:

And those who were surprised drew themselves up in battle array in a woody glen along the bank of the river. Alexander drew out his phalanx into a deep column, and led it on in person. He also ordered the archers and slingers to run forward and discharge arrows and stones at the barbarians, hoping to provoke them by this to come out of the woody glen into the ground unencumbered with trees. When they were within reach of the missiles, and were struck by them, they rushed out against the archers, who were undefended by shields, with the purpose of fighting them hand-to-hand. But when Alexander had drawn them thus out of the woody glen, he ordered Philotas to take the cavalry which came from upper Macedonia, and to charge their right wing, where they had advanced furthest in their sally. He also commanded Heraclides and Sopolis to lead on the cavalry which came from Bottiaea and Amphipolis against the left wing; while he himself extended the phalanx of infantry and the rest of the horse in front of the phalanx and led them against the enemy's centre. And indeed as long as there was only skirmishing on both sides, the Triballians did not get the worst of it; but as soon as the phalanx in dense array attacked them with vigour, and the cavalry fell upon them in various quarters, not striking them with the javelin moreover, but pushing them with their very horses, then at length they turned and fled through the woody glen to the river.

[Erpingham]

I'm somehow reminded of Yzma in The Emperor's New Groove when Kuzco catches her sitting on his throne ruling the empire behind his back:
"Doing what?"

Nice one Justin.  Whenever my three (now grown up) daughters meet up, one will invariably at some point say "Hey, I'm a Llama again" and they will all collapse in hysterics, so I have fond memories attached to the film

Without going into it in depth, I think we have a different idea of the dynamism of the hoplite defence and the degree of initiative the cavalryman retains when he has begun his ramming action. Again, this reflects a view as to whether we are talking of a manouever of precision or brute force.  But, as Patrick has said, perhaps time to leave it as a point of difference and move on.  I think there is some quite interesting stuff coming out about cavalry/infantry co-operation coming out, for example.

[Erpingham]

Attempts to get much greater detail out of these accounts risks selective reading of figurative or formulaic language as factual description to support one's own case.

I think this has been one of the problems in the discussion.  Too much can be built on a word or phrase, perhaps missing the literary impact that the author was after.  The Plutarch comment is a good example - his main purpose is to tell us about the courage of the Sacred Band and Philip's sensibilities (he reacts like a civilized Greek, not some kind of barbarian), not to enter a discussion into Macedonian armament or a CSI-type analysis of wounds.

[Duncan Head]

The context appears to suggest that the missile skirmishing was done by archers and slingers only, with the cavalry devoted exclusively to charging:

Not to me. The shooting by the archers and slingers is only mentioned before tha Triballians are out of the wooded glen; the whole second paragraph, "And indeed as long as there was only skirmishing on both sides, the Triballians did not get the worst of it; but as soon as the phalanx in dense array attacked them with vigour, and the cavalry fell upon them in various quarters, not striking them with the javelin moreover, but pushing them with their very horses, then at length they turned and fled through the woody glen to the river" is after that, and the archers etc seem to be ignored, so the "skirmishing"/distant combat/akrobolismos is associated only with the Triballians, the phalanx, and/or the cavalry.

[Justin Swanton]

But look at the sequence of events. Alexander orders his archers and slingers to harass the Triballians and draw them out of the wood. When they take the bait and come out he orders his upper Macedonian cavalry to charge the right wing, the cavalry under the command of Heraclides and Sopolis to move against the left wing and the remainder of the cavalry along with the phalanx to attack the centre.

Arrian then sums up the situation: the Triballians had managed fine when enduring missile fire, but they fold when the phalanx along with the cavalry who charge to contact hit them.  Nothing here suggests an intermediary cavalry shooting phase between the shooting by the archers and slingers and the final closing in for the kill by the cavalry and phalanx.

[Patrick Waterson]

Justin has essentially said everything I would have said in this situation.

What do you make of this?

I think it misses "eti". This is a particle that usually has an implication of time, so "kai hoi hippeis ouk akontismō eti" means something like "and the cavalry were no longer shooting javelins at them". There was an initial missile phase, akrobolismos,  before the pushing, which "eti" implies that the cavalry were taking their part in.

I would read it rather as "and the cavalry eti (still) not shooting at them, but ōthountes allē (thrusting here and there) and allē prosepipton (here and there riding them down).

And I think otheo is used in too wide a range of contexts to draw any very firm conclusion about what it implies this time.

One might say the same about eti - but doing so does not particularly help us.  Otheo in all of its contexts has the sense of thrusting or pushing with force, which allows us to conclude that the Macedonian cavalry were engaging in melee when the expectation - at least among the Triballi - was that they would engage with missiles.  One may readily surmise from this that the Macedonian cavalry were using weapons intended for close combat, as they did at the Granicus the following year.

The original point here was that the new translation stated or implied that Macedonian cavalry in this case used javelins, which we have demonstrated is not supported by Arrian's Greek, which rather emphasises their non-use of javelins when they might be expected to do so and the substitution of a close-combat attack system instead.  We may differ over interpretation of individual words, but the context is of preliminary skirmishing in which the Triballi hold their own followed by close action against Macedonian infantry and cavalry in which they do not, and in which the Macedonian cavalry gives the impression of acting contrary to expectation.

I think this has been one of the problems in the discussion.  Too much can be built on a word or phrase, perhaps missing the literary impact that the author was after.

Agreed: we do need to consider the context and how the whole picture fits together.

[Duncan Head]

No, I see nothing "contrary to expectation" in the passage at all. Justin's assessment of the sequence of events is misleading. Alexander sends the archers and slingers to lure the Triballians out of the woods. When they succeed, he sends the Upper cavalry (etc) to attack - rather than "charge" - the right wing. There is then a period of distant fighting - it makes no sense for this passage, placed between the advance of the phalanx and cavalry and their closing to handstrokes, to refer back to the archers' activity three sentences earlier. That is the sequence that Arrian describes. and that's why ouk eti has an implication of time, "no longer shooting javelins", because it's set in opposition to the preceding period of time when the distant fighting was taking place.

I don't see that the Macedonian cavalry pushing their horses into the Triballians, after their period of throwing javelins at them, suggests they had lances: it certainly does not prove it. Cavalry seem to have often been prepared to close with peltasts and other non-hoplite infantry - these are Thracians, remember, not hoplites - when conditions were right. So there is no "substitution of a close-combat attack system instead"; rather, the cavalry are behaving exactly the same as we would expect Greek or even Persian cavalry, armed with javelins or the usual mixture of javelins and spears, to behave against peltasts. It's also - odd? - that if Arrian wants to describe a new tactical style involving lances, the only weapon he mentions is the javelins that Patrick and Justin reckon weren't being used.

I should add that the smiley in the original post was genuine, I do not really think that the cavalry lance was introduced in 335/4 - though it does seem possible that the Upper Macedonian cavalry hadn't yet adopted it in 335, they may have been the last to do so. But it is interesting that while various ancient sources credit Philip with introducing the sarisa to the infantry, but not with any change in cavalry weaponry.

[Justin Swanton]

I don't see that the Macedonian cavalry pushing their horses into the Triballians, after their period of throwing javelins at them, suggests they had lances: it certainly does not prove it. Cavalry seem to have often been prepared to close with peltasts and other non-hoplite infantry - these are Thracians, remember, not hoplites - when conditions were right. So there is no "substitution of a close-combat attack system instead"; rather, the cavalry are behaving exactly the same as we would expect Greek or even Persian cavalry, armed with javelins or the usual mixture of javelins and spears, to behave against peltasts. It's also - odd? - that if Arrian wants to describe a new tactical style involving lances, the only weapon he mentions is the javelins that Patrick and Justin reckon weren't being used.

To be honest, it makes sense that the Macedonian cavalry had javelins since Arrian mentions them. If they had only lances he would either have stated the fact or not mentioned their weaponry at all.

Granted that, the question then is whether all the cavalry were javelin-armed, and only javelin-armed. If the answers are yes and yes then clearly cavalry was not the battle winner at Chaeronea. But nothing precludes the idea that some of the cavalry had javelins and some not, or that (some) cavalrymen had javelins and lances. Arrian mentions the javelins in a specific context - they were not/no longer being used - without implying they were the only armament of the horsemen.

What is of interest is the use made of the cavalry: two bodies attack either flank of the Triballians whilst a third body, placed in front of the phalanx, attacks the centre. It is possible to see here an allusion to one kind of cavalry used in a frontal shock role, in contrast to more lightly-armed cavalry employed in flanking actions?

One thing I find curious: why put cavalry in front of the phalanx?