Why were light troops inserted among heavies?

[Patrick Waterson]

Asklepiodotus does not put the formation into a battlefield context, so we are reduced to guessing when and where it would be employed.  It is in his book, so was presumably employed by someone somewhere on occasion.  Like Jim, I cannot see it as a useful march formation; the most logical time to employ it would be when advancing in order of battle towards the enemy on the battlefield, as it allows the lights and heavies to keep the enemy in view and conceals the number and type of light troops until they are committed, for what that is worth, and also allows the heavies to deploy on their intended frontage (they will fill in their files once the light troops have done their thing and retired through the gaps between files).

The most obvious advantage, which Jim has touched upon, is easy station-keeping for the heavy infantry files; when the formation halts to let the skirmishers out to do their stuff, the heavies are in nice neat files with proper man-size gaps between them - and stay that way until the lights need to use those gaps at the end of skirmishing.  In essence, this would mean it was a station-keeping exercise, an easy way of keeping the right gaps for the light infantry to advance, skirmish and then retire through the heavies.

I see another possible reason for inserting lights among the heavies. It would be effective against an enemy formation that does not have lights of its own, permitting the lights mixed with their own heavies to keep shooting the advancing enemy until the last possible moment before retiring and allowing their heavies to double files.

This would be a different slant to the usual mixed formation type, which seems to have relied upon heavy infantry in front and misilemen to the rear.  I wonder how the two systems would compare for missile count, accuracy, weight and pattern of shooting.

[Justin Swanton]

Asklepiodotus does not put the formation into a battlefield context, so we are reduced to guessing when and where it would be employed.  It is in his book, so was presumably employed by someone somewhere on occasion.  Like Jim, I cannot see it as a useful march formation; the most logical time to employ it would be when advancing in order of battle towards the enemy on the battlefield, as it allows the lights and heavies to keep the enemy in view and conceals the number and type of light troops until they are committed, for what that is worth, and also allows the heavies to deploy on their intended frontage (they will fill in their files once the light troops have done their thing and retired through the gaps between files).

It also keeps the files of the lights and heavies in perfect alignment, i.e. when the mixed formation stops the lights just advance ahead of the heavies, shoot, and then retire quickly and without disorder by simply turning 180 degrees and marching straight back between the files of the heavy infantry. Useful in battlefield conditions where light troops need to keep shooting at advancing enemy until the last possible moment.

[Patrick Waterson]

It also keeps the files of the lights and heavies in perfect alignment, i.e. when the mixed formation stops the lights just advance ahead of the heavies, shoot, and then retire quickly and without disorder by simply turning 180 degrees and marching straight back between the files of the heavy infantry. Useful in battlefield conditions where light troops need to keep shooting at advancing enemy until the last possible moment.

I am wondering if this arrangement may have made a brief appearance at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC.  The Seleucid phalanx is described as being '32 deep', which from Polybius XII.19.6 was, at least in Alexander's time, the starting depth for a phalanx which ended up eight deep before contacting the enemy.  However later Hellenistic phalanxes tended to be 16 deep (this is the depth Polybius assumes as standard in Book XVIII where he discusses the Macedonian phalanx) so a 32 deep phalanx, through which archers retired near the beginning of the battle, would presumably be a 16-deep phalanx not yet closed up and hence still able to admit light infantry between its files.

The effect was rather spoiled in the actual battle when the light infantry, apprehensive about the noises of defeat emanating from the Seleucid left, piled back through the phalanx and just kept running, but the principle may have been there.  If so, it would be an actual instance of Asklepiodotus' method having occurred on a real battlefield.  (I am not saying that it has to be, just that it looks like a candidate.)

[Jim Webster]

I am wondering if this arrangement may have made a brief appearance at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC.  The Seleucid phalanx is described as being '32 deep', which from Polybius XII.19.6 was, at least in Alexander's time, the starting depth for a phalanx which ended up eight deep before contacting the enemy.  However later Hellenistic phalanxes tended to be 16 deep (this is the depth Polybius assumes as standard in Book XVIII where he discusses the Macedonian phalanx) so a 32 deep phalanx, through which archers retired near the beginning of the battle, would presumably be a 16-deep phalanx not yet closed up and hence still able to admit light infantry between its files.

The effect was rather spoiled in the actual battle when the light infantry, apprehensive about the noises of defeat emanating from the Seleucid left, piled back through the phalanx and just kept running, but the principle may have been there.  If so, it would be an actual instance of Asklepiodotus' method having occurred on a real battlefield.  (I am not saying that it has to be, just that it looks like a candidate.)

It doesn't really gel with Appian's account

"The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again. Thus crowded together, Domitius easily enclosed them with his numerous light cavalry. Having no opportunity to charge or even to deploy their dense mass, they began to suffer severely; and they were indignant that military experience availed them nothing, exposed as they were on all sides to the weapons of the enemy. Nevertheless, they presented their thick-set pikes on all four sides.

They challenged the Romans to close combat and preserved at all times the appearance of being about to charge. Yet they did not advance, because they were foot-soldiers and heavily armed, and saw that the enemy were mounted. Most of all they feared to relax their close formation lest they might not readily bring it together again.

The Romans did not come to close quarters nor approach them because they feared the discipline, the solidity, and the desperation of this veteran corps; but circled around them and assailed them with javelins and arrows, none of which missed their mark in the dense mass, who could neither turn the missiles aside nor dodge them.

After suffering severely in this way they yielded to necessity and fell back step by step, but with a bold front, in perfect order and still formidable to the Romans. The latter kept their distance and continued to circle around and wound them, until the elephants inside the Macedonian phalanx became excited and unmanageable. Then the phalanx broke into disorderly flight."

[Patrick Waterson]

The bit I had in mind was:

"The Macedonian phalanx, which had been stationed between the two bodies of horse in a narrow space in the form of a square, when denuded of cavalry on either side, had opened to receive the light-armed troops, who had been skirmishing in front, and closed again."

Appian has it 'open' and 'close' - but if the light troops were in a hurry, could they really wait for a 32-deep phalanx to 'open'?  Or did they dash through already-open file-width lanes?

[PMBardunias]

And Tyrtaeus (at least following the English translation and I always mistrust translations) is equally clear that the men with shields are on either side of the skirmisher, not in front of him.

Yes, the light armed have men with shields on either side, but that does not mean they lined up between them in a single rank.  What you are reading is more likely in my opinion to indicate missile troops throwing/shooting over the space between two heavies with overlapping shields. In this case probably the rear rank of a few ranks of heavies given Tyrtaeus's constant pushing of heavies towards the front.  The basic tactics of Tyrtaeus's day are really no different than those of the Near Eastern tradition. In fact you can read into Tyrtaeus and urging to break with the standard tactic of the era to use your heavies as a wall to protect the missile duel happening around them, and move more swiftly to direct attack with spears of the enemy line.  This tactical change births the classical phalanx. See an Assyrian example from a hunting scene below.

The tacticians also are clear that skirmisher foot would line up in front of the heavy foot with as many files but half as many ranks - without the benefit of shield-protection by the heavies. The implication is that each skirmisher had a space about 3 feet wide and 6 feet deep. No room for running around at all. When they skirmished with enemy lights, they gave it and took it without being able to evade incoming missiles. Despite this skirmishing could go on for a long time with relatively few casualties. What are we missing?

This is clearly not the way peltasts or psiloi fought, and perhaps represents a shift in tactics made possible by the thureos. Surely even velites ran forward and back rather than stood in ranks to fight. One thing that always gets forgotten in these discussions of frontage is that you are only limited laterally by frontage measures, ranks of men at 6 foot frontage could be 20 feet apart or haphazardly staggered as they move for and aft to throw.

[PMBardunias]

That makes sense. I see another possible reason for inserting lights among the heavies. It would be effective against an enemy formation that does not have lights of its own, permitting the lights mixed with their own heavies to keep shooting the advancing enemy until the last possible moment before retiring and allowing their heavies to double files.

Why hide them within the ranks if the enemy has no missile troops? It seems to me it would be easier to form in front and either run around the flanks prior to contact or move through a staggered portion of the phalanx than to move back out of file and then move in the rear half of the file of pikes when the enemy in oncoming.  I would not want to have to double sarissa with the enemy charging on me.

But I think the opposite setting may see a use for this.  When the enemy has lights, or horse, but no heavies they cannot charge sarissa even in opened order, so there is no downside to moving up a file of archers to ward them off. This would have the effect of a fulcum, mixing missile and spear.

[Patrick Waterson]

So it seems as if there could be uses for Asklepiodotus' alternate light-heavy file arrangement.  Interesting.

Incidentally, nice Assyrian shield wall pic, Paul: it has just been added to my collection!  OK, it is an arrangement for hunting, but it looks well alongside the siege reliefs.

[PMBardunias]

So it seems as if there could be uses for Asklepiodotus' alternate light-heavy file arrangement.  Interesting.

Incidentally, nice Assyrian shield wall pic, Paul: it has just been added to my collection!  OK, it is an arrangement for hunting, but it looks well alongside the siege reliefs.

Yea, I love that image because you can see how the usual Spearman/Archer pairs we see from the side in reliefs could be, and I think were, brought together to form a shield-wall and archer support.  The hunting scene required the artist to show the "box" of men from a bit above in a manner that they do not usually show.  This puts their tactics completely within the range of those of the Persians and Archaic Greeks.

[Mark G]

It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.

And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low. 
A spearman to protect him?  Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.

[Jim Webster]

It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.

And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low. 
A spearman to protect him?  Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.

how deep did the Burgundians form up with their pike/bow combinations?
And Italian city state crossbowmen behind a single rank with pavise?

[Andreas Johansson]

It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.

And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low. 
A spearman to protect him?  Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.

I was about to say, it is a hunting scene, and game animals are not known for riding horses, so I'd be vary of assuming it representative of battlefield usage in that regard, but it turns out it's not hard to google up an image showing similar poses in battle against enemy infantry.

[PMBardunias]

It is also interesting that it shows only a 2 man deep formation.

And suggests that the confidence in the bow against a determined enemy was low. 
A spearman to protect him?  Not a shield barer alone, he has a long spear, and not an anti cavalry protection either, for the spearman is operating one handed and downward, not braced and at a horse level.

This formation of spearman with shield in front of light troops or archers is very common.  Not sure why fewer archers mean less confidence, but this is a hunting scene, so it could be that normally the archer/spearman pair segregated into multiple ranks of spearmen and archers for battle.  Probably no more than 3 or 4 though, based on other shield walls.  But Persians used a single rank of shieldmen in front of multiple ranks of archers to great effect.

As to the spear position, this is a common ready position for a spear used with one hand in overhand- that droop saves you a lot of energy when holding it. Just as hoplites who held their spears like this were, these men would have been quite effective against horse as well as infantry.

[Mark G]

Oh, id missed that it was a hunting scene.

Rather nullifies the post in that respect.