"Crazy" for Chaeronea - Part 3

[Patrick Waterson]

I'm not sure you can support that pat.
Surely the point is, a wedge penetration does what you describe, not specifically a cavalry wedge.

That phalanxes sought to maintain frontage, and hence uniform-ish push and pull, is significant.  We have nothing to tell us how an infantry wedge would do if successful against a phalanx, although we can guess from other examples against other infantry formations in other periods.

I suggest finding at least one reference to a Macedonian infantry wedge before continuing with this line of argument. 

The fact that the wedge was horsed here doesn't change the relative effect of its penetration over all infantry.

Er - could you expand on that comment a bit, please, Mark?

Tactically, Alexander's attack is described as managing to 'errexe' (sunder, break through) the 'polemion taxeos' (enemy formation).  An infantry/infantry fight, especially between phalanxes, usually results in a push back followed by a collapse and rout, not a sundering of the line.  A cavalry unit in wedge, however, cleaves through, or at least into, an enemy formation rather than pushing it back. 

Hang on a minute, we are getting into circular arguments.
This discussion started on whether the cavalry could burst through infantry, and now we're arguing that it had to be cavalry that did the attack because cavalry do burst through infantry.

Not quite: the argument is that phalanxes do not burst through phalanxes, so if something does, it cannot be a phalanx, besides which men leading phalanxes do so from in line, not in front.  Since this leaves not a lot of other combat arms to choose from where the leader is first into action and first through the enemy formation, a Macedonian cavalry wedge suggests itself in the absence of other candidates.

From memory Infantry can burst through infantry, didn't the Thebans do this when Agesilaus blocked their path (A case when they attacked in a narrow column)

This would be the Battle of Coronea (394 BC).

"At this point one may unquestionably call Agesilaus courageous; at least he certainly did not choose the safest course. For while he might have let the men pass by who were trying to break through [diapiptontas = escape] and then have followed them and overcome those in the rear, he did not do this, but crashed against the Thebans front to front; and setting shields against shields they shoved, fought, killed, and were killed. Finally, some of the Thebans broke through [diapiptousi = escaped] and reached Mount Helicon, but many were killed while making their way thither" - Hellenica IV.3.18-19.

Diapipto has the sense of trying to escape or get away as opposed to breaking through.   Errexe (from rhegnumi), which Diodorus has Alexander do at Chaeronea, is more along the lines of break through, shatter, rend or burst through.

One may note the very different nature of an infantry fight, as described by Xenophon: the participants set shield to shield, shoved, fought, killed and only then did one side prevail (or some of one side escape).  Alexander's activities at Chaeronea were much more knife-through-butter, or at least Diodorus gives that impression.

To be fair to the argument, a deep Theban column could smash through an opposing line (at Coronea they 'cut in two' [diakopsantes] the Orchomenans and then went for the baggage train) but the Macedonians did not use deep Theban columns.

[Duncan Head]

Tactically, Alexander's attack is described as managing to 'errexe' (sunder, break through) the 'polemion taxeos' (enemy formation).  An infantry/infantry fight, especially between phalanxes, usually results in a push back followed by a collapse and rout, not a sundering of the line.

Except that this same verb of which errexe is a form, is the one that Herodotos 6.113 uses for the Persian infantry centre breaking through the Athenian line, or Euripides (Herakleidai 835) for what is clearly (despite its heroic setting) a hoplite combat - "At first the rhythmic clash of the Argive infantry broke our ranks, but then they retreated. Thereafter foot was locked with foot and man stood against man and the battle kept on in strength. Many soldiers fell." And that's even without all the Homeric examples cited in LSJ, which aren't going to be cavalry!

LSJ doesn't cite any cavalry usages that I can see - I haven't managed to get anything more useful out of the word usage tools. But so far it looks as if this is a verb which authors find completely suitable for heavy infantry combat, and indeed I await evidence that it is ever used for cavalry. At the moment, then, the language could be said to support the idea that Alexander was leading infantry.

[Duncan Head]

I suggest finding at least one reference to a Macedonian infantry wedge before continuing with this line of argument.

Asklepiodotos XI.5?

[Patrick Waterson]

I suggest finding at least one reference to a Macedonian infantry wedge before continuing with this line of argument.

Asklepiodotos XI.5?

This can be seen at Lacus Curtius.

One notes that the entire section is supposedly devoted to marching formations, but yes, there is the koilembolos (chevron), figure 18 and the embolos (wedge, albeit hollow, a reverse chevron), figure 19.  Mark may now continue his argument. 

LSJ doesn't cite any cavalry usages that I can see - I haven't managed to get anything more useful out of the word usage tools. But so far it looks as if this is a verb which authors find completely suitable for heavy infantry combat, and indeed I await evidence that it is ever used for cavalry. At the moment, then, the language could be said to support the idea that Alexander was leading infantry.

And presumably infantry in a wedge, for him to be first through the enemy formation?

In the Perseus LSJ, Diodorus has three uses listed under rhegnumi, to break asunder, and five under rhesso, to stamp: XII.59 (referring to earthquakes tearing a gap in an isthmus) and XVI.86 (Alexander breaking through the Thebans at Chaeronea) appear in both lists(!).  This leaves just XVII.88 under rhegnumi from which to draw conclusions about Diodorus' usage, and this entry refers to Macedonians caught up by elephants' trunks being thrown down to earth.

Bringing in the examples listed solely under rhesso, which might properly be applications of rhegnumi, we have XIV.72, which refers to Dionysius' ships ramming Carthaginian triremes, XV.34, which is another case of ships ramming ships, and XVII.58, which refers to chariot scythes slicing through ribs.

Ergo, we have no uses by Diodorus of rhegnumi being used to indicate infantry breaking or breaking through infantry, whatever usage other authors might employ.  Unless of course XVI.86.3 is the one and only example ...

[Jim Webster]

Let's just get one thing straight, Alexander was about 18 and he wasn't a particularly big man. So he wasn't in the front line of the infantry even if it was an infantry attack.
This is because if he was, there was just too much risk that someone one the opposite side would just have smashed his defence down by sheer weight and killed him as he was trapped and unable to dodge.
Yes, he might had been with the 'leading ranks', indeed his bodyguard might even have been part of a unit, but remember that front rankers are 'sergeants', men who've been about a bit and had a lot of experience. He would have died in the first five minutes

I don't particularly care what the authors said, there are artistic conventions that have to be obeyed and they doubtless obeyed them. When his bodyguard broke through they may even have folded to both sides to open the gap and to let Alexander step through their ranks first, but he didn't fight his way through the ranks in person leading from the front.

On a horse, yes, being young and lithe and nimble can work because you've got room to move, but in the front ranks of  a heavy Infantry combat you haven't.

Jim

[Duncan Head]

At the moment, then, the language could be said to support the idea that Alexander was leading infantry.

And presumably infantry in a wedge, for him to be first through the enemy formation?

As I think I said in a previous thread, even in a line, someone's got to be the first to break through. (And the king or prince will usually get the credit, of course.) In fact as it's those "next to him", "ton parastaton", who break through in succession, I think the language fits those stood beside him in a line at least as well as successive ranks in a wedge.

In the Perseus LSJ, Diodorus has three uses listed under rhegnumi, to break asunder, and five under rhesso, to stamp: XII.59 (referring to earthquakes tearing a gap in an isthmus) and XVI.86 (Alexander breaking through the Thebans at Chaeronea) appear in both lists(!).  This leaves just XVII.88 under rhegnumi from which to draw conclusions about Diodorus' usage, and this entry refers to Macedonians caught up by elephants' trunks being thrown down to earth.

Bringing in the examples listed solely under rhesso, which might properly be applications of rhegnumi, we have XIV.72, which refers to Dionysius' ships ramming Carthaginian triremes, XV.34, which is another case of ships ramming ships, and XVII.58, which refers to chariot scythes slicing through ribs.

Ergo, we have no uses by Diodorus of rhegnumi being used to indicate infantry breaking or breaking through infantry, whatever usage other authors might employ.  Unless of course XVI.86.3 is the one and only example ...

And similarly, we have no incidents of Diodorus (or anyone) using the verb to indicate cavalry breaking through. So usage for infantry is still the better attested.

(Please no-one suggest that Alexander was on a ship at Chaironeia, or a chariot!)

[Patrick Waterson]

As I think I said in a previous thread, even in a line, someone's got to be the first to break through. (And the king or prince will usually get the credit, of course.) In fact as it's those "next to him", "ton parastaton", who break through in succession, I think the language fits those stood beside him in a line at least as well as successive ranks in a wedge.

We may have to agree to disagree on that particular interpretation, because Plutarch (Alexander 9.2) also makes the point that Alexander was first to plunge into the Sacred Band (protos enseisai to hiero lokho) as opposed to doing it primus inter pares.

To me, Macedonian infantry wedges at Chaeronea are inherently unlikely not only for the reason Jim mentions, but also because if the technique was successful at Chaeronea, why was it never employed again?  Cavalry wedges led by Alexander were, but infantry wedges led by Alexander are not attested (unless someone has a reference).

This leaves us with the basic alternatives of the Macedonian royal personages acting as front-rankers in a phalanx (presumably of hypaspists) or leading cavalry wedges.  If we take them to be infantry front-rankers, we need to contradict our source assertions that they were first, in front of, etc. and write that off as a literary device.  We also have to explain what they were doing on foot when Alexander's and presumably Philip's customary place in battle was on horseback with his Companions, and given the Macedonian tradition of Companion somatophylakes (the 'inner circle' of bodyguards) we would presumably have to invent some scenario in which they dismount and join the front rank of the phalanx.  Furthermore, we have to ask what the 2,000-strong Macedonian cavalry was doing at Chaeronea as without royal patronage it appears bereft of a role.

Conversely, if Philip and Alexander were leading cavalry wedges, the ahead-of-the-flock references fall nicely into place, the rupture of the enemy line fits, the Macedonian cavalry have their role to play and all we have to do is discard our customary belief that no cavalry could successfully overcome hoplite infantry from the front.

Then again, the existence of rivers on the battlefield might permit a new hypothesis ...

(Please no-one suggest that Alexander was on a ship at Chaironeia ...)

... or maybe not. 

[Duncan Head]

Let me just make a final contribution by saying that I find too many assumptions in Patrick's interpretation. Just because someone was "first" doesn't mean we should assume they were at the point of a wedge. Because Alexander normally led cavalry once he was King, we can't assume that it was already his "customary place" as crown prince. We really know even less about Philip's customary behaviour, though if the Vergina tomb is his, he was buried with an infantryman's greaves and hoplite shield. And so on.