Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Jim Webster]

Actually when you read it, the Greeks attacked the Macedonians. It seems that a gap opened up because in at least one area the phalanx was slowed by the terrain and at other points the phalanx must not have been bothered by terrain. This allowed the phalanx to become 'disjointed' and the Hoplites could attack there.
So whilst "many parts steep and precipitous" and "certain places, where it seemed more easy to ascend, he extended a stockade along it"  'many' and 'certain' almost certainly leaves areas which were neither, perhaps because the hoplite commander was intelligent enough to leave himself avenues to mount a counter attack.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Actually when you read it, the Greeks attacked the Macedonians.

Erm ... 'counter-attacked at the gap' I would accept.

So whilst "many parts steep and precipitous" and "certain places, where it seemed more easy to ascend, he extended a stockade along it"  'many' and 'certain' almost certainly leaves areas which were neither, perhaps because the hoplite commander was intelligent enough to leave himself avenues to mount a counter attack.

The Greek of Arrian II.10 has the sense that such places as were easy of access were palisaded.  Gaps are not mentioned.

esti de hopou kai kharaka parateinas autais hina euephodōtera ephaineto

(And all those places which were easy of access had a palisade stretched across them.)

The mercenaries had presumably strengthened their positions on their own initiative, whereas the kardakes seem to have felt that their arrows and the presence of the river would be sufficient defence.  That the mercenaries were not confident about encountering Macedonians without an advantage in terrain or defences is indicative of respective expectations.

[Jim Webster]

You're over extrapolating again
The account doesn't mention that the entire front had defences or was covered by terrain.
The account does mention that parts of the front were open so hoplites could counter attack.
The first translation that you posted said

"In certain places, where it seemed more easy to ascend, he extended a stockade along it"

So which is it?

What ever happens has to allow for the counter-attack that we know happened.

Also why should we presume the mercenaries did anything?
We are told specifically

"For Darius was no longer leading the foreigners against him, as he had arranged them at first, but he remained in his position, upon the bank of the river, which was in many parts steep and precipitous ; and in certain places, where it seemed more easy to ascend, he extended a stockade along it."

Now this is all we know. Postulating that the mercenaries did more defences (Why, since when were Greek mercenary hoplites known for erecting fixed defences for field battles?) is taking us beyond the sources.
Indeed the way the Greeks counter attacked seems to indicate that whilst Darius was cowed, his Greeks were more confident

Jim

[Mark G]

You also forget who commanded at these two battles.
Charonea Alex was just a boy who did what he was told.
Issus, he was the king and had victories of his own to prove it

[Patrick Waterson]

You're over extrapolating again
The account doesn't mention that the entire front had defences or was covered by terrain.
The account does mention that parts of the front were open so hoplites could counter attack.

Sadly it does not: it merely says that the parts easy of access were all (esti) fenced off by a palisade.  This is why I checked the Greek.

The first translation that you posted said

"In certain places, where it seemed more easy to ascend, he extended a stockade along it"

So which is it?

Nope, Justin posted that one. 

What ever happens has to allow for the counter-attack that we know happened.

This was not a planned 'counter-attack' but an opportunistic exploitation of a rupture in the Macedonian line as the hypaspists and right-hand phalanx pressed on after the collapsing kardakes and the remainder of the phalanx got stuck in against the mercenaries.  Arrian also notes that "in a number of places the steep banks of the stream prevented them [the phalanx] from maintaining a regular and unbroken front, and the result was that Darius' Greek mercenaries attacked precisely at the point in the line where the gap was widest."  The Macedonians seem to have been pressing back the mercenaries despite the palisades, but those with tricky bits of river bank to deal with were being held up and the rapid advance of those facing the kardakes had created a significant gap which seems to be the one the mercenaries attacked into.  In theory the line of Greek allies following Alexander's phalanx should have handled this, but one gets the impression they were slow off the mark in this case - they may have dealt better with the smaller gaps.

Also why should we presume the mercenaries did anything?
We are told specifically

"For Darius was no longer leading the foreigners against him, as he had arranged them at first, but he remained in his position, upon the bank of the river, which was in many parts steep and precipitous ; and in certain places, where it seemed more easy to ascend, he extended a stockade along it."

Now this is all we know. Postulating that the mercenaries did more defences (Why, since when were Greek mercenary hoplites known for erecting fixed defences for field battles?) is taking us beyond the sources.

There seems to be some confusion here.  What we are told is that the Greek mercenaries were drawn up along the river bank; where it was difficult of access it was not palisaded; where it was easy of access it was.  This is what Arrian's account tells us - no more, no less.  Darius ordered (ephaineto) the erection of the palisades (kharaka).  I do not see where the idea that the mercenaries did 'more' defences arises - certainly not from any posts in this thread.

"For Darius was no longer leading the foreigners against him" seems to be a dictionary-over-sense translation of  ouketi antepēge Dareios (literally: 'not now advanced against him Darius'); the Penguin translation renders the sense better as: "Darius made no move to attack, but kept his men in their initial dispositions along the river bank".

Charonea Alex was just a boy who did what he was told.

I am going to have to ask for some source evidence for that assertion.  It is incredible that Alexander, who had conducted his first campaign at sixteen, would be 'just a boy who did what he was told' two years later.

[Jim Webster]

Thanks for the clarification of the Greek Patrick, obviously the palisades were easy enough for the Greeks to take down when they mounted their own counter attack.

With regard to the comment "I am going to have to ask for some source evidence for that assertion.  It is incredible that Alexander, who had conducted his first campaign at sixteen, would be 'just a boy who did what he was told' two years later."

He was an ephebe, He wasn't a man, indeed in Greek and Roman culture you became a full adult later in life than we accept as normal now. (Indeed in Roman culture it could be argued that a man didn't become a full adult as we could accept it until his father died.)
Now I'm not sure the details of the Macedonian equivilent of the ephebate (if that is the correct word) but I see no evidence that Macedonians advanced to adult hood earlier than their neighbours with whom they shared so much common culture. Indeed the Macedonian Kings claimed to be Hellenes.

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

Slightly off-subject but still sort of on it, what is the primary source evidence for the dead tree of the Alexander mosaic being at Gaugamela as opposed to at Issus?

Secondly, why were the Persian spears so long?

Ta in advance.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks for the clarification of the Greek Patrick, obviously the palisades were easy enough for the Greeks to take down when they mounted their own counter attack.

Although we are not told that they did so ... this is perhaps an extrapolation? 

With regard to the comment "I am going to have to ask for some source evidence for that assertion.  It is incredible that Alexander, who had conducted his first campaign at sixteen, would be 'just a boy who did what he was told' two years later."

He was an ephebe, He wasn't a man, indeed in Greek and Roman culture you became a full adult later in life than we accept as normal now. (Indeed in Roman culture it could be argued that a man didn't become a full adult as we could accept it until his father died.)
Now I'm not sure the details of the Macedonian equivalent of the ephebate (if that is the correct word) but I see no evidence that Macedonians advanced to adult hood earlier than their neighbours with whom they shared so much common culture. Indeed the Macedonian Kings claimed to be Hellenes.

Macedonians do seem to have done things differently.  Macedon was a monarchy, and we might note (perhaps if I say it often enough) that Alexander conducted his first campaign at the age of sixteen (Plutarch, Alexander 9.1).

"While Philip was making an expedition against Byzantium, Alexander, though only sixteen years of age, was left behind as regent in Macedonia and keeper of the royal seal, and during this time he subdued the rebellious Maedi, and after taking their city, drove out the Barbarians, settled there a mixed population, and named the city Alexandropolis."

Also noteworthy is that Alexander, not his tutor or one of Philip's officers, was given the keeping of the royal seal, and hence the exercise of royal authority - at the age of sixteen.  While the Macedonian royal line was indeed of Greek descent - Thucydides II.9 tells how the Temenids of Argos made themselves rulers of the locality - and they drove out some of the tribes in the area, the population they ruled was apparently not Greek.  Hence when dealing with Macedon we should not assume that Greek customs are necessarily applicable.

Anyone else who states that Alexander was an 'ephebe' or 'boy' at Chaeronea will be asked to write out the above quote from Plutarch 100 times . 

[Jim Webster]

Thanks for the clarification of the Greek Patrick, obviously the palisades were easy enough for the Greeks to take down when they mounted their own counter attack.

Although we are not told that they did so ... this is perhaps an extrapolation? 

"But the Grecian mercenaries serving under Darius attacked the Macedonians at the point where they saw their phalanx especially disordered. "

If the interpretation is that what wasn't too steep to attack up was guarded with pallisades, and if the translation is correct, we are told they attacked. Obviously they might have poured down the steep slopes in total disarray, or they might have vaulted the pallisades, or there might have been gaps left to allow for counter attacks which  isn't without precedent.

With regard to the comment "I am going to have to ask for some source evidence for that assertion.  It is incredible that Alexander, who had conducted his first campaign at sixteen, would be 'just a boy who did what he was told' two years later."

He was an ephebe, He wasn't a man, indeed in Greek and Roman culture you became a full adult later in life than we accept as normal now. (Indeed in Roman culture it could be argued that a man didn't become a full adult as we could accept it until his father died.)
Now I'm not sure the details of the Macedonian equivalent of the ephebate (if that is the correct word) but I see no evidence that Macedonians advanced to adult hood earlier than their neighbours with whom they shared so much common culture. Indeed the Macedonian Kings claimed to be Hellenes.

Macedonians do seem to have done things differently.  Macedon was a monarchy, and we might note (perhaps if I say it often enough) that Alexander conducted his first campaign at the age of sixteen (Plutarch, Alexander 9.1).

"While Philip was making an expedition against Byzantium, Alexander, though only sixteen years of age, was left behind as regent in Macedonia and keeper of the royal seal, and during this time he subdued the rebellious Maedi, and after taking their city, drove out the Barbarians, settled there a mixed population, and named the city Alexandropolis."

Also noteworthy is that Alexander, not his tutor or one of Philip's officers, was given the keeping of the royal seal, and hence the exercise of royal authority - at the age of sixteen.  While the Macedonian royal line was indeed of Greek descent - Thucydides II.9 tells how the Temenids of Argos made themselves rulers of the locality - and they drove out some of the tribes in the area, the population they ruled was apparently not Greek.  Hence when dealing with Macedon we should not assume that Greek customs are necessarily applicable.

Anyone else who states that Alexander was an 'ephebe' or 'boy' at Chaeronea will be asked to write out the above quote from Plutarch 100 times . 

Yes, Plutarch, writing about 500 years later mentions that Alexander was keeper of the royal seal because it doesn't mention he had veteran officers, clerks and suchlike.
After all, we assume that there were military commanders in charge of the units that we assume were under him, so I see no reason why there shouldn't be the usual clerks and financial officers who continued running things.
A regent can be given the keeping of the seal without having to sleep with it under his pillow just as a general can overthrow the enemy without having to break their line in person

Jim

[Mark G]

As regent, not while under immediate royal command.
Come on patrick, dad says jump, boy jumps.

[aligern]

I am very worried by this rubbishing of Plutarch.  Whilst I am all for source criticism we have to be very careful about discounting sources who were themselves working from sources that were closer to the time. If Alexander was acting as regent then he was not  merely a shadow doing what the men around the throne said. Philip would have left sensible courtiers to give advice, but you are either regent or you are not and Alex would have the final say. The macedonians were quite open in their advice to kings so those left with Alex would be open and honest, but I bet he made the decisions.

Ancient and medieval history walks a line between on the one hand close analysis of the meaning of individual words and, on the other acceptance of anything written a long time ago as literal truth. Clearly both a very dangerous views.  Once we decide to deride a source  we need good reason, otherwise the whole of Plutarch is gone and much more besides. If Plutarch is contradicted by other, closer sources then fine to disbelieve, if the tenor of the times from closer to the action is against him then we might disbelieve, but just citing the 500 years gap. is a bit too aggressive an interpretation.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I am very worried by this rubbishing of Plutarch.  Whilst I am all for source criticism we have to be very careful about discounting sources who were themselves working from sources that were closer to the time. If Alexander was acting as regent then he was not  merely a shadow doing what the men around the throne said. Philip would have left sensible courtiers to give advice, but you are either regent or you are not and Alex would have the final say. The Macedonians were quite open in their advice to kings so those left with Alex would be open and honest, but I bet he made the decisions.

Ancient and medieval history walks a line between on the one hand close analysis of the meaning of individual words and, on the other acceptance of anything written a long time ago as literal truth. Clearly both are very dangerous views.  Once we decide to deride a source  we need good reason, otherwise the whole of Plutarch is gone and much more besides. If Plutarch is contradicted by other, closer sources then fine to disbelieve, if the tenor of the times from closer to the action is against him then we might disbelieve, but just citing the 500 years gap. is a bit too aggressive an interpretation.

Roy

Agreed.  If we adopt temporal distance as an index of reliability of judgement this must reflect on those of us who attempt to dismiss source material at an interval of 1,800 years ...

A regent can be given the keeping of the seal without having to sleep with it under his pillow just as a general can overthrow the enemy without having to break their line in person

But in Macedon he who held the seal governed the country, wherever he put it at night.

As regent, not while under immediate royal command.
Come on patrick, dad says jump, boy jumps.

Actually not:

"And since Philip saw that his son's nature was unyielding and that he resisted compulsion, but was easily led by reasoning into the path of duty, he himself tried to persuade rather than to command him." - Plutarch, Alexander 7.1

It seems the point of these attempts to represent Alexander as being still effectively a child who must be coddled at Chaeronea is a last-ditch attempt to detach him from taking a leading role at the tip of a cavalry wedge.  Such attempts to portray Alexander as anything but Alexander do not convince.

[Erpingham]

It seems the point of these attempts to represent Alexander as being still effectively a child who must be coddled at Chaeronea is a last-ditch attempt to detach him from taking a leading role at the tip of a cavalry wedge.  Such attempts to portray Alexander as anything but Alexander do not convince.

Let's keep a sense of proportion here.  I agree with Roy that the Regent will have had executive power, although his father would have been sensible enough to have left senior advisors and an experienced bureaucracy (of what ever form that took).  This means that a similar arrangement could have been in place in military affairs - leadership of troops, assisted by experienced officers and plenty of bodyguards (I don't buy the idea that Philip would have left Alexander deliberately vulnerable).  But is a leap beyond our evidence to be certain that Alexander fought with the cavalry, let alone how they were drawn up.  So suggesting that interpretations that do other than place Alexander at the tip of a hoplite-smashing wedge are "last-ditch" perhaps misrepresents the balance of the evidence.

[Jim Webster]

Given that people like Parmenion and Antipater were perfectly capable of telling Alexander he was wrong when he was an adult and could override them, I cannot imagine them being cowed by a sixteen year old

Jim

[Jim Webster]

It seems the point of these attempts to represent Alexander as being still effectively a child who must be coddled at Chaeronea is a last-ditch attempt to detach him from taking a leading role at the tip of a cavalry wedge.  Such attempts to portray Alexander as anything but Alexander do not convince.

As opposed to last ditch attempts to prove that there was a cavalry wedge present at all?

Jim