Dimachae

[Duncan Head]

I haven't read that particular Anderson article, but I think he's talking about Archaic mounted hoplites - 6th century and earlier. Probably not a helpful precedent, as they seem to have gone out of use long before Alexander's day.

It seems to me that Alex originally mounted some infantry simply for speed and endurance, for the pursuit of Darius. Curtius' calling them "dimachae" at that point may be anachronistic in that such an improvised corps may not have acquired the name straight away; if it's not, if they were called dimachai from their inception, then they must have been given the name before they fought anyone, whether from horseback or afoot - in which case, no-one yet really knew how good they would turn out to be at either role. Ans as I said, I see nothing at all in the source passages that suggests they ever actually did much mounted fighting.

As an aside, I have long suspected that we may have an image of one of these guys. On the Alexander Sarcophagus is a figure in Macedonian helmet, exomis, hoplite shield, no cuirass or greaves. Unusually - uniquely? not sure - among dismounted figures he wears the same boots as the cavalry. Infantry figures on the Sarcophagus are barefoot (the reason I hesitate over "uniquely" is that I think there may be a non-combatant or two in boots?). Sekunda identifies him as a hypaspist; I wonder if he's a dimachēs. He has " lighter equipment than hoplite infantry" in that he lacks cuirass and greaves,  yet "heavier equipment than cavalry" in that he carries a shield; and he wears riding-boots. 

The secondary problem is that our faithful Arrian seems to mention only two instances of Alexander putting infantry on horseback - 500 eclectic elite footmen during the pursuit of Darius and 800 apparently more homogenous footsoldiery when chasing down the Aspasians, Gureans and Assacenians - and this hardly seems sufficiently frequent or consistent for consideration as a new troop type.

Not really convinced, especially with the aura that hung around everything Alexander did. I suspect that the pursuit of Darius was originally a one-off expedient, and since it worked Alexander either repeated the improvisation later or else set up a permanent force which might have trained in its dual role regularly but which we only happen to hear of in action once, and of course he then needed a striking name for them.

[Jim Webster]

I think we're in danger of reading too much into this.

I might be wrong but all that seems to be described is one specific incident when Alexander, in pursuit of Darius, wanted some infantry to stiffen his cavalry, perhaps if Darius holed up somewhere or went into rough country. So he grabbed some infantry, stuck them on horses (perhaps after asking if they could ride) and said 'follow me'.
There was no time for training, it's not a new troop type, it's a romantic expedient as a one off mentioned by historians who had access to the anecdote

[Duncan Head]

Well, that's sort of Patrick's objection, isn't it? If the mounted infantry are a mere "romantic expedient", then when Pollux describes dimachai as a new troop-type, is he thinking of something else entirely?

[Jim Webster]

I would ask just how reliable Pollux was as a source. Described under the wiki as "grammarian and sophist, scholar and rhetorician, 2nd century AD, from Naukratis" I'd have to ask which was his source because he's 400 to 500 years adrift of being an eye witness

Unless he had a unique source, what did he see in the original sources that other historians missed?

[Andreas Johansson]

Well, that's sort of Patrick's objection, isn't it? If the mounted infantry are a mere "romantic expedient", then when Pollux describes dimachai as a new troop-type, is he thinking of something else entirely?

I note that Rolfe's translation of Curtius speaks of "300 of the troops known as dimachae", implying a an already-existing force, but more literally Curtius says "300, whom [they] called dimachae", which is more noncommital.

Is it possible that the new troop type arose only in the minds of historians overinterpreting the anecdote?

[RichT]

The Anderson article is chiefly about chariots - Homeric chariot warfare, and its possible survivals into later eras (Cyrenean chariots). He also considers Archaic vase paintings of mounted hoplites and concludes  "In short, the mounted hoplite with shield, is to be regarded as a mounted infantryman, and the second horse, and the 'squire' who is to hold both, are necessary parts of this 'weapons-system'."

One fun example he quotes in passing is (oh dear) Atlantis (combining the Perseus translation with Anderson's for the 'pair' component):

Plato Critias 119a-b
"So it was ordained that each such leader should provide for war the sixth part of a war-chariots equipment, so as to make up 10,000 chariots in all, together with two horses and mounted men;  also a pair without a chariot, having a man to dismount with a small shield [mikraspis], and the man who holds the reins of both horses after the rider; and two hoplites; and archers and slingers, two of each; and light-armed slingers and javelin-men, three of each; and four sailors towards the manning of twelve hundred ships. Such then were the military dispositions of the royal City; and those of the other nine varied in various ways, which it would take a long time to tell."

Which is a bit like what Pollux describes. Curtius seems to be talking about mounted infantry (and still calls them 'dimachai').  Personally I would take the idea of a new troop type, and anything in Pollux, with half a tonne of salt.

[Duncan Head]

I would ask just how reliable Pollux was as a source.

Well, the wiki you quote also says:

(Pollux's Onomasticon) supplies in passing much rare and valuable information on many points of classical antiquity — objects in daily life, the theater, politics — and quotes numerous fragments of lost works

In short, he clearly had access to stuff we don't. Pollux might just have been elaborating from the Curtius passage, perhaps picking up the horse-holder from Plato; or he might have drawn from Curtius' sources, lost Alexander-historians such as Kleitarchos. We don't really know.

[RichT]

True.

"We don't really know" - the motto of the true ancient historian.

[Patrick Waterson]

Well, that's sort of Patrick's objection, isn't it? If the mounted infantry are a mere "romantic expedient", then when Pollux describes dimachai as a new troop-type, is he thinking of something else entirely?

I note that Rolfe's translation of Curtius speaks of "300 of the troops known as dimachae", implying a an already-existing force, but more literally Curtius says "300, whom [they] called dimachae", which is more noncommital.

Is it possible that the new troop type arose only in the minds of historians overinterpreting the anecdote?

A possibility, but it would be a bold historian who took, for example, Caesar's assignment of infantry from his antesignani to work with his cavalry in the run-up to Pharsalus and coined a new term for them (for example, dimachae), on the basis that they travelled on horseback and fought on foot - for one short campaign.

Archaic though mounted Greek infantry might be, one does not see them referred to as dimachae whereas Diodorus does so refer to the Spanish dual-role troops he mentions in V.33.5.  He at least seems clear about the concept, or at least his understanding of it.

As an aside, I have long suspected that we may have an image of one of these guys. On the Alexander Sarcophagus is a figure in Macedonian helmet, exomis, hoplite shield, no cuirass or greaves. Unusually - uniquely? not sure - among dismounted figures he wears the same boots as the cavalry. Infantry figures on the Sarcophagus are barefoot (the reason I hesitate over "uniquely" is that I think there may be a non-combatant or two in boots?). Sekunda identifies him as a hypaspist; I wonder if he's a dimachēs. He has " lighter equipment than hoplite infantry" in that he lacks cuirass and greaves,  yet "heavier equipment than cavalry" in that he carries a shield; and he wears riding-boots. 

Good observation, Duncan: this would appear to confirm him as a Macedonian.

It would incidentally appear to exclude the 500 mentioned as being placed on cavalry mounts for the pursuit of Darius (Arrian III.21.7) as they are described thus:

... tous hēgemonas de tōn pezōn kai tōn allōn epilexamenos tous kratisteuontas epibēnai tōn hippōn ekeleusen houtōs hopōs hoi pezoi hōplismenoi ēsan.
("... he mounted the toughest and fittest officers of his infantry and other units, ordering them to keep their own arms and other equipment.")

To consider these men as dimachae, Curtis notwithstanding, would require them to be removed permanently from their commands (and issued with cavalry boots) and embodied as a separate unit which received training for mounted action.  Sheer likelihood and military common sense suggests these officers would have returned to their respective units, which would rather disqualify them a) as a new troop type and b) from appearing on the Alexander Sarcophagus.  The infantryman with cavalry boots Duncan has spotted, if he is a dimachus (which I am quite willing to accept), indicates a degree of permanence for the troop type on the basis that it persists long enough to be depicted in sculpture.

Whether the dimachae are identical with the hippakontistai is a separate question, and one we are unlikely to be able to resolve.  The coincidence of a new troop type appearing in Arrian shortly after it appears in Curtius and the absence of mention in Arrian of any specific contingent which can be identified as such leaves us as far as I can see with the following likely options:

1) Hippakontistai are dimachae.  Alex obviously values them and takes them everywhere when campaigning in rough country, where 'dragoon capability' would be valuable.  See. for example, Arrian V.23.1 against the Cathaei: Alexander finds the ground unsuitable for cavalry and promptly dismounts to lead an assault on foot.  Curiously, when first formed (Arrian III.24.1) they constitute not a recognised cavalry formation but a taxis ... Arrian might be using the word very loosely ('formation') or he may signify that this cavalry contingent was formed with infantry organisation.

2) One or more of the reorganised Companion cavalry units are dimachae.  They are not differentiated because they have Companion status (which would be consistent with appearing on the Alexander sarcophagus) and can fight mounted like Companions.  This would explain why Arrian never mentions them as a distinct contingent, and allows them to accompany Alexander everywhere while remaining a distinct troop type.

"We don't really know" - the motto of the true ancient historian.

"We really ought to try and find out" - the motto of the true researcher.

[Duncan Head]

I don't find option (1) inviting at all. Option (2) is possible, especially in view of Arrian 1.6.5:

Alexander saw only a few of the enemy still occupying a ridge, along which lay his route, he ordered his body-guards and the companions around him to take their shields, mount their horses, and ride to the hill; and when they reached it, if those who had occupied the position awaited them, he said that half of them were to leap from their horses, and to fight as foot-soldiers, being mingled with the cavalry.

So I still think it's more likely that he tried mounting 300 or 500 infantry to chase Darius and, since that worked, he later arranged for horses to be issued to 800 infantry, who became known as dimachai. No, they wouldn't have to be withdrawn permanently from their commands and embodied as a permanent unit, any more than (to use Patrick's parallel) Caesar's antesignani were permanently formed into a light infantry unit; they'd just need to be available for occasional training and otherwise "commanded out" when required for action. The grooms Pollux describes would look after their horses, and quite possibly their riding-boots, when not required.

That would mean that we don't have to assume that Curtius is using the name dimachae for the wrong men - he clearly uses it for mounted infantrymen, not Patrick's dismountable cavalry; and would explain why the possible dimaches on the Sarcophagus wears an infantryman's helmet. (In fact I see nothing that excludes him from being one of the original 300, assuming only that the quartermasters could rustle up 300 pairs of riding-boots in a hurry; the only other change in equipment is that he's left his cuirass and greaves off.)

[Patrick Waterson]

For this to work, do we have to assume that the 'dimachae' are in effect part-time mounted troops who otherwise live and move and have their being as Foot Companions?

Let us explore the idea a little further.

I would have thought it is easier to train cavalry to fight on foot than to train infantrymen to manage horses.  Of course, Macedonian officers (Arrian's 500 who are mounted for the pursuit of Darius are described as 'hegemonas'), if drawn from the nobility rather then the peasantry, might already know how to ride and manage a horse, and could have been expected to participate in hunts and thus already be skilled at employing weapons from horseback, meriting an effective dimachae label and hence agreeing with Pollux' classification.

There is thus (to my mind) no insuperable objective to Duncan's suggestion, and my main reservation would be that any time the 'dimachae' were activated it would strip Alexander's better infantry of some or all of their officers, to the detriment of their effective functioning.  This would not matter so much if they were just following on, but would complicate matters as and when the infantry were brought into action.  The idea that the subsequent 800 who were mounted for Alexander's trip up the River Choes (Arrian IV.23) would be the dimachae contingent proper might have more appeal if the contingent were mentioned more than just once.  That said, 800 is an unusual number for a Macedonian infantry formation (unless it is a rounding of 3x256 = 768) but about right for 4 ilai of cavalry.  On that basis, it is worth not dismissing Duncan's suggestion.

Overall, from an organisational point of view it would make more sense to me if the dimachae were either hippakontistai or Companions who were also good at fighting dismounted.  However Duncan's chain of thought has merit, and could repay further study.  The reader may take his choice.

[RichT]

(Going back a little) I agree that, given that Curtius uses the Greek word, and it's a rare word at that, it's highly likely he found it in his source; and that in turn makes it very possible that Pollux used the same or a similar source for his definition.

Patrick

Archaic though mounted Greek infantry might be, one does not see them referred to as dimachae whereas Diodorus does so refer to the Spanish dual-role troops he mentions in V.33.5.  He at least seems clear about the concept, or at least his understanding of it.

One doesn't see them referred to as anything - they are known from vase paintings. 'Dimachai/ae' as far as I know only occurs these three times - Diod 5.33.5, Pollux and Curtius - so not too much can be read into the word itself as an indicator of fighting styles (we can't be sure it would mean exactly the same to Diodorus as to whoever Pollux and Curtius' source was, if indeed they had a common source). We know Alexander mounted some of his infantry, that he used them on various occasions, that a/the Greek word for such men is 'dimachai'. In short, I've lost track of what else there is to find out...

It's a nice idea that one such may be on the Sarcophagus - though I'm extremely doubtful about identifying individual uniforms/equipment, given that infantry are depicted in their birthday suits - for all the accuracy with which individual items (and colours) are depicted.

[Andreas Johansson]

There is thus (to my mind) no insuperable objective to Duncan's suggestion, and my main reservation would be that any time the 'dimachae' were activated it would strip Alexander's better infantry of some or all of their officers, to the detriment of their effective functioning.  This would not matter so much if they were just following on, but would complicate matters as and when the infantry were brought into action.

If they weren't available as dimachae when the phalanx was brought into action, that could explain why we don't hear of them in pitched battle.

[Duncan Head]

'Dimachai/ae' as far as I know only occurs these three times - Diod 5.33.5, Pollux and Curtius

David Karunanithy refers  to a Hesychios passage as well, where I think H equates dimachai with hamippoi (suggesting that the word also might be used for light infantry who ride double with horsemen then hop off to support them from afoot, or suggesting that he doesn't know what he's talking about?).

[RichT]

Ah  -
https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%93%CE%BB%CF%8E%CF%83%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%B9/%CE%94

<διμάχαι>· οἱ λεγόμενοι <ἅμιπποι>, οἵτινες ὁτὲ μὲν πεζῇ, ὁτὲ <δὲ> ἐφ' ἵππων μάχονται

dimachai - so called hamippoi, who fight either on foot, or from horses (more or less)

Though his definition of hamippoi is

<ἅμιπποι>· δύο ἵπποι συνεζευγμένοι

Two horses yoked together

So 'doesn't know what he's talking about' sounds possible, though my belief is 'dimachai' is as vague and flexible a term as 'dual role' in English - so Alexander's men are some dimachai, not The Dimachai