Dimachae

[Andreas Johansson]

According to various brief notices in secondary or tertiary sources - e.g. this WP article - Alexander the Great's army is supposed to have contained a sort of "dragoons" known as dimachae (Gk διμάχαι -"double fighters" or something of the sort). Is anyone aware of any ancient description of them beyond this brief bit from Curtius 5.13.8?

Sed fatigatis necessaria quies erat: itaque delectis equitum vi milibus CCC, quos dimachas appellabant, adiungit. Dorso hi graviora anna portabant, ceterum equis vehebantur: cum res locusque posceret, pedestris acies erant.

which Jonh C. Rolfe translated as

But rest was necessary for his wearied men ; therefore to 6000 elite horsemen he [sc. Alexander] added 300 of the troops known as dimachae. These carried heavier armour on their backs, but rode on horses ; when the occasion and the situation demanded, they fought on foot.

[Patrick Waterson]

I suspect these may be the 'hippakontistai' Arrian mentions in III.24.1 when first formed (a 'taxis', incidentally) and subsequently on several occasions (list here).

If not, we have two new troop categories to explain!

[Duncan Head]

The best short account of the dimachae is in David Karunanithy's Macedonian War Machine, pp.224-225. Arrian 3.21.7 also mentions the first use of the dimachae at the same time as Curtius, though he doesn't use the name, he just speaks of officers "from the infantry and other units" being given horses. He also has some later references, again not using the name. Diodoros V.33.5 uses the word dimachai for Spanish troops who can fight both on horseback and on foot. The fullest description of Alex's dimachai is from Pollux:

Another type of horsemen, dimachai, Alexander's invention, having lighter equipment than hoplite infantry and heavier equipment than cavalry; they were trained to fight in both ways, from the ground and from horseback ... [when they dismounted] ... a servant, following them for this very reason, carefully took the horse; and the one who had dismounted from the horse was straightaway a hoplite.

I very much doubt that they are the same as the hippakontistai. The first reference to these is the small unit left to garrison Areia, which was soon massacred in a revolt. The second lot, who fought at Jaxartes, I am inclined to identify with the Arachosians and Paropamisadai (as I said in the Slingshot article on the army at the Hydaspes), while the dimachai look to have been Macedonians. For one thing we have the dimachai riding but not as far as I can see any explicit reference to them fighting from horseback, whereas the hippakontistai at Jaxartes are charging mounted alongside the Companions.

[Andreas Johansson]

Thanks. Do I gather they're never heard of under the Successors?

[Duncan Head]

Do I gather they're never heard of under the Successors?

I don't think they are, no.

[Patrick Waterson]

Possibly complicating the issue is that in Arrian IV.23.2 Alexander takes "the mounted troops," including the hippokontistai, "and about 800 Macedonian foot, whom he also mounted still carrying their infantrymen's shields".  This seems to be similar to III.21.7 (which Duncan mentions), wherein Alexander dismounts 500 cavalry and mounts 500 of the "toughest and fittest officers of his infantry and other units, ordering them to keep their own arms and equipment."

While conscious of Duncan's points, I still do not see these troops as being dimachai, just mounted infantry.  I suppose the question is really whether dimachae were just mounted infantry, or whether they were capable of fighting as cavalry and infantry, in which case they could have been the hippakontistai, although to be certain of this we would need some reference to hippakontistai fighting dismounted.

We have tended to assume that hippakontistai are hipp-akontistai, or javelin-throwing cavalry.  Might Arrian instead have intended them as hippa-kontistai, or mounted men with a kontos?  This is the same Arrian who in his Ektaxis kata Alanoon (Order of Battle Against the Alans) arms the front ranks of his legionaries with a kontos ...

Just a thought.

Marek Jan Olbrycht makes the point (see p.67 and following for his paper) that the hippakontistai were used as if they were one of Alexander's elite contingents, taking the field with the Companions and occasionally Hypaspists, Argianes etc.  He obviously found them really useful, much more so than one might expect from a collection of ordinary native javelin cavalry.  At the same time, there is no other obvious contingent on which we can pin the dimachae label.  Hence Occam's razor and my train of thought.

[Andreas Johansson]

We have tended to assume that hippakontistai are hipp-akontistai, or javelin-throwing cavalry.  Might Arrian instead have intended them as hippa-kontistai, or mounted men with a kontos?

Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

[Duncan Head]

Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

They're not horse-lancers, they're horsed javelinmen - akontistai, from akontion.

While conscious of Duncan's points, I still do not see these troops as being dimachai, just mounted infantry.  I suppose the question is really whether dimachae were just mounted infantry, or whether they were capable of fighting as cavalry and infantry, in which case they could have been the hippakontistai, although to be certain of this we would need some reference to hippakontistai fighting dismounted.

I think that's exactly what the dimachai are - just mounted infantry. The Curtius passage using "dimachae" and the Arrian one describing the mounting of infantry look to be different versions of the same event, the pursuit of Darius,and thus describing the same men; and as I said, even the Pollux definition doesn't describe the dimachai as fighting from horseback. Look again at what Curtius says - they rode on horseback, but fought on foot. In which case the name is perhaps not as apt as one might hope; no doubt they could swing a sword on horseback if absolutely forced to, but I don't see them as genuinely dual-capable.

[Andreas Johansson]

Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

They're not horse-lancers, they're horsed javelinmen - akontistai, from akontion.

That's my point. If they were, as Patrick suggests, named for kontoi rather than akontia, they ought be called hippokontistai. They aren't, so Patrick's idea doesn't seem to fly philologically.

[Duncan Head]

That's my point. If they were, as Patrick suggests, named for kontoi rather than akontia, they ought be called hippokontistai. They aren't, so Patrick's idea doesn't seem to fly philologically.

Ah, I see; I missed that point in Patrick's post. You're right, it won't fly. And Arrian himself uses "kontophoroi" when he means riders with kontos (Taktike IV.3).

[Patrick Waterson]

Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

One would imagine so, yes.  Equally, one might imagine javelin cavalry as hippakontiztai, from akontizein.  I am not sure we can place too much contrary faith in a single letter if a basic observation is sound.  The essential question is of course whether the basic observation is sound.

I think that's exactly what the dimachai are - just mounted infantry. The Curtius passage using "dimachae" and the Arrian one describing the mounting of infantry look to be different versions of the same event, the pursuit of Darius,and thus describing the same men; and as I said, even the Pollux definition doesn't describe the dimachai as fighting from horseback. Look again at what Curtius says - they rode on horseback, but fought on foot. In which case the name is perhaps not as apt as one might hope; no doubt they could swing a sword on horseback if absolutely forced to, but I don't see them as genuinely dual-capable.

Although Diodorus seemed to think they should be:

Diodoros V.33.5 uses the word dimachai for Spanish troops who can fight both on horseback and on foot.

The question I have is: why call them dimachae if they can only fight effectively one way, i.e. on foot?  The concept of mounting infantry was not particularly new.  The onomastic Julius Pollux states: "they were trained to fight in both ways, from the ground and from horseback," which to me is clear enough that they were more than just mounted infantry.

So is Curtius getting confused and creating a red herring over simple mounted infantry, or was such a dual-capability troop type actually created by Alexander and if so, where did it fit into his scheme of operations?

[Andreas Johansson]

One would imagine so, yes.  Equally, one might imagine javelin cavalry as hippakontiztai, from akontizein.  I am not sure we can place too much contrary faith in a single letter if a basic observation is sound.

But that's not a fair comparison: z > s is regular here - indeed there's any number of nouns in -istes from verbs in -izein - but -a- as linking vowel would be a one-off against an even larger number of compounds with -o-.

[RichT]

Besides which (AFAIK), kontos is never used of Alexander's army (or for any army before the Parthians, earlier uses all referring to ordinary poles of various sorts).

[Duncan Head]

One would imagine so, yes.  Equally, one might imagine javelin cavalry as hippakontiztai, from akontizein.  I am not sure we can place too much contrary faith in a single letter if a basic observation is sound.  The essential question is of course whether the basic observation is sound.

But ordinary foot javelinmen are akontistai, a word you can find hundreds of times from Homer onwards. Sticking a hipp- on the front wouldn't change the spelling.

The question I have is: why call them dimachae if they can only fight effectively one way, i.e. on foot? 

PR?

Anyway they probably could fight from horseback, just not necessarily very well - like early dragoons, mostly mounted infantry but capable of some sort of charge on horseback in the right circumstances. They may even have got better at it during the few years that the corps apparently existed.

The concept of mounting infantry was not particularly new.

Isn't it? What pre-Alexandrian examples are there? (Greek ones, especially: I'm aware of Darius apparently putting troops on camels at Babylon.)

[Patrick Waterson]

One would imagine so, yes.  Equally, one might imagine javelin cavalry as hippakontiztai, from akontizein.  I am not sure we can place too much contrary faith in a single letter if a basic observation is sound.

But that's not a fair comparison: z > s is regular here - indeed there's any number of nouns in -istes from verbs in -izein - but -a- as linking vowel would be a one-off against an even larger number of compounds with -o-.

Besides which (AFAIK), kontos is never used of Alexander's army (or for any army before the Parthians, earlier uses all referring to ordinary poles of various sorts).

Fair points.  Duncan also points out that Arrian uses kontophoroi for cavalrymen with a kontos, which I considered more equivocal, but on the whole agree that philologically 'hippa-kontistai' flies about as well as a Bloch 150.

The question I have is: why call them dimachae if they can only fight effectively one way, i.e. on foot? 

PR?

Seriously?

Anyway they probably could fight from horseback, just not necessarily very well - like early dragoons, mostly mounted infantry but capable of some sort of charge on horseback in the right circumstances. They may even have got better at it during the few years that the corps apparently existed.

If the basic concept is a dual-use solider (four legs good, two legs also good) then being inept at one of the two fundamental roles rather destroys the point of the concept.  This is the main problem I have with the idea of dimachae as mounted infantry with a twist.  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.

The concept of mounting infantry was not particularly new.

Isn't it? What pre-Alexandrian examples are there? (Greek ones, especially: I'm aware of Darius apparently putting troops on camels at Babylon.)

Egypt was putting men on horseback without them necessarily being cavalry-capable at the time of the Exodus; regarding Greek examples, Mr JK Anderson can probably summarise the situation better than I can.  (Not being JSTOR registered I cannot read the article so could end up with metaphorical ovum on my visage, but the blurb suggests something there.)