Right, let's do it. This originally started as a look at the site of the battle, however after reading Duncan's excellent Battleday pack article I feel it deserved a fuller treatment. But let's start with the battlefield location. Most contemporaries agree it took place at the narrows between Mytika and Kapnistra. This, presumably, was the border between Mantinea and Tegea and hence the battle was named after the city that was closer to the field of battle (Mantinea's 6,3km vs Tegea's 11,9km).
The problem with this site though is that one is obliged to reject whole sections of primary source material to make it fit the battle.
First, its position. If Epaminondas left Tegea with his army on the day of the battle, he would have to march for about 11km to reach the narrows. Xenophon however does not mention any long march from the camp to the battlefield. He does imply that the army deployed into line as soon as it had quit the city:
But when he had led them forth, thus made ready, it is worthwhile again to note what he did. In the first place, as was natural, he formed them in line of battle.
If the army deployed into line as soon as it had left Tegea it would have to travel due north to reach the narrows. Xenophon however affirms it did something quite different:
And by doing this he seemed to make it clear that he was preparing for an engagement; but when his army had been drawn up as he wished it to be, he did not advance by the shortest route towards the enemy, but led the way towards the mountains which lie to the westward and over against Tegea.
Xenophon is clear: the army quits camp at Tegea, forms up in line, then marches towards the mountains that lie west of Tegea. Not north-west, not north-north west. West.
His march towards the mountains gives the impression he does not intend to fight a battle:
he did not advance by the shortest route towards the enemy, but led the way towards the mountains which lie to the westward and over against Tegea, so that he gave the enemy the impression that he would not join battle on that day.
Epaminondas reaches one of the mountains and his army grounds spears, giving the impression he is pitching camp. This makes sense in that a camp against a mountain range is more secure than a camp in the middle of a flat plain. Furthermore, there is a pass in the mountains west of Tegea that leads to Megalopolis - friendly territory. I'll cover this later.
How does Xenophon's description work for a battlefield at the narrows? Once an army deploys for battle, its movement options become limited. Cavalry and infantry have the choice of advancing straight ahead, countermarching and retiring backwards, or forming column from line and moving right or left (and then wheeling if they choose). Heading towards the westward mountains in this case would mean everyone forming column and marching off to the left. One thing armies did not do - in Antiquity or any other period - was pivot whilst in line backwards around the end of one of their flanks, like a door on hinges. So Epaminondas marches into the cul-de-sac to the west of the narrows. Then what?
(As an aside he is still in Tegean territory. Just sayin' ::) )
Presumably his column reforms line now facing south east with the mountains behind it (a natural place to pitch camp as his rear is secure), whilst Spartans & co. still face south. There's no mention of the latter doing any manoeuvring at this point: on the contrary they start loosening their ties. So how does the battle start?
(https://i.imgur.com/m6JCTBq.jpg)
Then there is the problem of terrain. At the narrows the ground is virtually dead flat, with the slopes of Mytika and Kapnistra rising up steeply on either side. There are no other terrain features. Xenophon mentions "some hills" on Epaminondas' right upon which he stationed cavalry and hoplites as a flank guard. This could conceivably refer to Kapnistra - there's a bit of gentle slope near the battlefield that might fit the bill:
(https://i.imgur.com/uxwzmoW.jpg)
But then you have the mentions of the "heights" on the other flank:
Diodorus
But having fled beyond the flanks, they managed to retrieve their defeat, for even in their retreat they did not break their own phalanx, and encountering simultaneously the Euboeans and certain mercenaries who had been dispatched to seize the heights nearby, they gave battle and slew them all.
.....
In fact the Athenians had defeated the Euboeans and mercenaries in the battle for the heights and were in possession of the dead; while the Boeotians, because they had overpowered the Lacedaemonians and were in possession of the dead, were for awarding the victory to themselves.
If the "heights" refer to Mytika then there is simply no way Athenian horsemen could have fought against infantry on it, never mind destroy them. My experience after a lot of Google Earthing is that steeply sloping mountains and hills that are not cultivated by humans tend to be covered by trees and bush, making them even more unusable by cavalry. That was certainly the case here:
(https://i.imgur.com/4REN0De.jpg)
Then you have the problem of the "higher ground" on which the heavy infantry fought:
Frontinus
Epaminondas, leader of the Thebans, when about to marshal his troops in battle array against the Spartans, ordered his cavalry to engage in manoeuvres along the front. Then, when he had filled the eyes of the enemy with clouds of dust and had caused them to expect an encounter with cavalry, he led his infantry around to one side, where it was possible to attack the enemy's rear from higher ground, and thus, by a surprise attack, cut them to pieces.
Polyaenus
To gain the advantage of ground over the Lacedaemonians near Tegea, Epaminondas ordered the commander of his cavalry, with sixteen hundred men, to ride up and down, a small distance in front of the army. By this means they raised a cloud of dust, which prevented the enemy from observing his movements. Then he moved away, and took possession of the higher ground. When the Spartans saw his new position, they realised the reason for the movements of his cavalry, which they had been unable to understand beforehand.
There isn't any "higher ground" at the narrows on which hoplites could have fought. If they fought between the two spurs then they fought on a billiard table, simple as that.
So one is obliged to discard the pre-battle movement account of Xenophon, the heights description of Diodorus and the higher ground descriptions of Frontinus and Polyaenus.
Let me continue this in other posts.
Before going any further a quick aside on my understanding of the organisation and size of the Spartan army. The size of the professional standing army remained pretty constant throughout the 5th and 4th centuries: about 3,500 men, but its structure evolved somewhat. When Thucydides described the Spartans at the first Battle of Mantinea (418BC) there were 3 tiers of command: lochos (512 men), pentekosty (128 men), enomotia (32 men). Each command is a quarter of the size of the command above it. 7 lochoi in all so a total strength of 3,584 men.
Some time after first Mantinea (i.e. when Thucydides is writing about the present state of affairs) there are now 4 tiers of command: 6 morai each have 4 lochoi; each lochos has 2 pentecostyes; each pentecosty has 2 enomotias. The simplest explanation for this is that the original pentecosty has been subdivided into two subunits. The subunits kept the name of pentecosty. The old pentecosty was now called a lochos and the old lochos was now called a mora. The new subdivision was necessary to create a square-shaped subunit which could wheel in battle to turn the line into an instant column. This was needed to envelope the enemy line. Hence the reason for polemarchs and pentecosters being summoned to military conferences whilst lochargoi were not: the new pentecosty was the unit of manoeuvre on the battlefield.
This new organisation meant there were now 24 lochoi. By the time one gets to Xenophon, who wrote after Thucydides, the organisation had slightly changed again. The lochos was doubled in size and now two lochoi made up a mora (and presumably four pentecostyes made up a lochos). So 12 lochoi by the time one reaches Second Mantinea. Throughout all this the professional army remained about the same size.
Why only 3,500 men? Because Sparta could not afford to maintain a standing army larger than this. Some other Greek poleis maintained professional troops but they never exceeded 1,000 men in size. Greek city states simply did not have the resources to support large contingents of full-time troops. The bulk of the Greek heavy infantry were citizen hoplites who earned their own keep in peacetime and bought their own equipment, dusting off the family aspis when it was time to go to battle and supplying their own needs when on campaign. Philip of Macedon barely managed to pay (when he did) for his full-time phalangites. Even with his conquests and acquisition of the gold mines near Krinides Macedonia was virtually bankrupt when he died. It was only when Alexander conquered the vast resources of the Persian Empire that large full-time armies became feasible.
This is all in my book BTW. ;)
The heretic will continue tomorrow evening. (have to earn my own keep and all that ::) )
There's one other problem with putting the site of the battle at the narrows and that is the city of Sparta.
As Epaminondas headed towards Tegea, 3 Spartan lochoi were campaigning in Arcadia and the remaining 9 were on their way with Agesilaus to Mantinea or had already arrived there. When exactly or even if they reached Mantinea is unclear. For Xenophon Epaminondas was already at Tegea when Agesilaus with the bulk of the Spartan army was at Pellana. For Diodorus Epaminondas was "near Mantinea" when the Spartan army was in the territory of Tegea (which is logical given that the route from Sparta to Mantinea passes through Tegea). For Polybius, when Epaminondas reached Tegea the Spartans had already arrived at Mantinea. According to Polybius Agesilaus was warned at Mantinea about Epaminondas' intentions: Then however a contretemps occurred: a deserter made his way into Mantinea and told Agesilaus what was going on. - Polybius: 9.8. According to Diodorus king Agis (I won't be arguing about whether he existed or not) warned Agesilaus before he reached Mantinea.
It is possible that Agesilaus himself hadn't reached Mantinea but Agis (if he existed) with the 3 lochoi from Arcadia had. The inhabitants of Sparta were forewarned of Epaminondas' approach and held off Epaminondas until the Spartan army returned to Sparta with the bulk of the Mantinean army: Having learned from his captives that the Mantineians had come in full force to assist the Lacedaemonians, Epameinondas then withdrew a short distance from the city and encamped - Diodorus: 15,84
My own take is that Agesilaus may well have been at Mantinea. The route from Mantinea to Sparta through Megapolis is 87km. Mantinea to Sparta via the more direct route Epaminondas took is 62km but Epimanondas took that route to return to Sparta so it is likely ruled out. Epaminondas' own overnight forced march is 43km. That means the Spartans had to hold out for about a day before the reinforcements arrived, taking two days to get there. Here's an operational map to give an idea of places and distances:
(https://i.imgur.com/74bC9Ac.jpg)
The Mantinean army returned with the Spartans for the main battle against Epaminondas: And presently the Lacedaemonians and Mantineans made their appearance as well, whereat all got ready for the contest which was to decide the issue and summoned their allies from every direction. - Diodorus: 15.84
And here's the problem. Epaminondas - encamped at Tegea - was between Mantinea and Sparta. It would be unthinkable for Agesilaus to leave Sparta open to another potential attack by Agesilaus. The Spartan army by itself was not large and had had to rely on the Mantinean reinforcements to defend the city against Epaminondas. Presuming Epaminondas had arrived with the Thebans and his cavalry - something like 7,000 hoplites and possibly several hundred cavalry, Agesilaus would need the Mantineans (about 3,000 hoplites) along with the Spartans (say 3,500 hoplites) to be sure of making the city safe. He couldn't go anywhere whilst Epaminondas was in the vicinity.
Which means few if any Spartans or Mantineans would have been present at the battle presuming it took place at the narrows. According to the general theory, the Mantineans and Spartans along with the rest deployed at the narrows whilst Epaminondas was still at Tegea. That meant they had in effect abandoned Sparta. Quod absit.
There is however a way for the Spartans and Mantineans to take part in the battle whilst keeping Sparta safe. To be continued....
Is it possible to reconcile the sources and make sense of the battle?
My approach, as everyone knows by now, is to treat the historians in Antiquity as intelligent and discerning men who understood the critical approach to history just as well as we do. They were like that man who was asked by his fiancee: "Darling, is it true you've been married five times already?" To which he replied: "Don't go listening to old wives' tales, dear."
Of course they could have inadequate sources, be biased, not understand their subject, get the wrong end of the stick, etc. Obviously I don't think every writer in the past was omniscient and infallible, but I have found that presuming from the outset that they are and refusing to reject a primary source unless absolutely obliged to, pays off.
So, the battle. Why was it called the "Battle of Mantinea"? The original cavalry fight took place at the narrows according to Pausanias: As you go along the road leading from Mantineia to Pallantium, at a distance of about thirty stades, the highway is skirted by the grove of what is called the Ocean, and here the cavalry of the Athenians and Mantineans fought against the Boeotian horse.
A Greek stade is about 185m (if based on the Attic foot) so the grove was 5,5km from Mantinea due south, which puts it near or at the narrows. What is interesting though is the mention of the road "leading from Mantinea to Pallantium." Pallantium was an independent polis, west of Tegea, important enough to feature by name in the list of Theban allies. (there was a dyke between them and Tegea to mark the border - anyone know where it was?) Tegea then, didn't control the entire valley.
It is assumed that the border between Mantinea and Tegea was at the narrows, but I can't find any confirmation of that. The only thing that seems certain about Greek city states was where the actual cities were. The mention of a road between Mantinea and Pallantium suggests that they had a common border. I propose that Mantinea territory extended well south of the narrows, something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/6Xbdwt4.jpg)
Flat arable land is at a premium in Greece. The valley north of the narrows is about 62km2 in area, the flat land south is about 134km2 (I'm leaving out the side valleys). Pallantium would have an area of about 24km2 which leaves Tegea with 110km2, nearly twice that of Mantinea. But Mantinea could field 2,500-3,000 hoplites whereas Tegea fielded 2,000-2,500. Something doesn't look right. If however Mantinea had a good slice of the southern half of the valley then Mantinea's superior manpower makes more sense. This is all theoretical of course. Can we know how much territory - more specifically flat arable land - Mantinea actually controlled?
The upshot is that one can site the battle west of Tegea and still have it in Mantinean territory. With that sorted out, it becomes possible to find a battlefield that caters for pretty much everything in the sources and discard the pruning shears (rather than the sources). Which rejoices my heart. But more in another post.
Putting all the sources together, what do we need for a battlefield?
First, as mentioned earlier, it needs to be west of Tegea. Which raises the question: where exactly did the Mantineans, Spartans, Athenians and the rest deploy? Up until now Epaminondas had used Tegea as a base from which to launch lightning strikes against vulnerable targets. To stop that, the allies had to confront him at Tegea itself. But first they had to join forces, something which Epaminondas had been trying to forestall. Where to join up? There is one plausible place: a side valley 4km west of Tegea. It could be easily reached from north and south and offered a secure campsite. It would pin Epaminondas at Tegea, obliging him to offer battle there or retire, closely pursued by the allied armies and incapable of any further mischief.
(https://i.imgur.com/81nodx4.jpg)
Taking up Xenophon, Epaminondas exits Tegea and forms a battleline just north or northeast of the city, facing the allied troops at the side valley entrance. His army is initially deployed in a conventional manner, a line of hoplites with cavalry in front. My own take is that an infantry battleline generally did not deploy wider than about a mile (1,6km) in order to be able to move and manoeuvre in a coherent fashion. In this case I suspect both sides pushed it to the limit and deployed about 2km wide. If Epaminondas had about 30,000 heavy foot then deployed around 16 deep the phalanx would be about 2000m wide. His opponents, with about 20,000 foot at an average of about 10 deep - 8 deep here, 12 deep there - would have the same frontage. If both sides had fewer hoplites then the lines deployed a little shallower. The allies likewise deployed their cavalry in front of their infantry: the allied army would have its flanks secure against the sides of the valley and so they didn't have to worry about being outflanked:
(https://i.imgur.com/hPI3D2R.jpg)
Having deployed and looking ready for a straight-up frontal fight, Epaminondas then does the unexpected. Stay tuned...
Having deployed as if to fight the Mantinean-Spartan-Athenian alliance, Epaminondas does not close with them but heads off "towards the mountains which lie to the westward and over against Tegea." He arrives at a new battlefield which according to the sources must have the following characteristics:
1. it is at the foot of the western mountains opposite Tegea,
2. it is next to one mountain that stands out from the others,
3. facing back east, Epaminondas will have some hills on his right flank in which cavalry and hoplites can lie in wait for any attempt to outflank his right,
4. there are "heights" on his left flank which can be seized by infantry but fought over by Athenian cavalry,
5. there is "higher ground" towards his left which his Theban column seizes to gain a better position.
Does anything fit the bill? I found this piece of ground that meets all the requirements:
(https://i.imgur.com/9lWYSkJ.jpg)
The site is at Tripoli, about 7,5km to the west (and a little to the north) of the original deployment at Tegea. You can see the site on Google Maps. I advise moving around to get a sense of the elevation of the ground:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5040779,22.3543666,2822m/data=!3m1!1e3
It's an ungodly hour so let me continue this tomorrow.
Fascinating study and analysis, Justin. Superb effort.
After reading your serial and studying Google Earth, I wonder why you assert that Mantineia and Pallantium must share a common border based upon noting a road leading from one to the other. Could this road linking the two not traverse Tegea? If not, why not?
Google Earth Archaeology opens up new doors to explorations.
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 24, 2023, 05:46:16 AMFascinating study and analysis, Justin. Superb effort.
After reading your serial and studying Google Earth, I wonder why you assert that Mantineia and Pallantium must share a common border based upon noting a road leading from one to the other. Could this road linking the two not traverse Tegea? If not, why not?
Google Earth Archaeology opens up new doors to explorations.
Thanks Jon. :) I'm proposing a common Mantinean-Pallantium border as a possible indication that Mantinean territory extended further south of the narrows than is generally assumed. It's of course possible that the road passed through Tegean territory, but "from Mantinea to Pallantium" seems to imply it didn't (or at least offers the possibility it didn't). Put the borders of Mantinea south of Tripoli and adjacent to Pallantium and all the problems posed by Xenophon disappear. It becomes possible to make a jigsaw puzzle using all the pieces and without forcing any of them into place.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 24, 2023, 06:19:52 AMPut the borders of Mantinea south of Tripoli and adjacent to Pallantium and all the problems posed by Xenophon disappear. It becomes possible to make a jigsaw puzzle using all the pieces and without forcing any of them into place.
The puzzle piece showing Mantineia directly abutting Pallantium might be a tight fit.
Interesting thoughts, Justin. The battle becomes more complicated by the minute :)
Just wondering where you think "Ocean" was? Given its prominence in Pausanius as related to the place of Epaminondas' death, or his burial place, it would be useful to pin down.
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 24, 2023, 03:18:43 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 24, 2023, 06:19:52 AMPut the borders of Mantinea south of Tripoli and adjacent to Pallantium and all the problems posed by Xenophon disappear. It becomes possible to make a jigsaw puzzle using all the pieces and without forcing any of them into place.
The puzzle piece showing Mantineia directly abutting Pallantium might be a tight fit.
We don't know where the border was. There are no geographic features that serves as a natural separation between Mantinea and Tegea. One assumes the border was at the narrows because that looks pretty on a map, but the narrows aren't that narrow - they're over 2km wide - and the frontier could just as easily have been further south as there. Putting the frontier further south has the effect of making Xenophon's entire pre-battle movement account fit snugly. I'll take it.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 24, 2023, 03:23:40 PMInteresting thoughts, Justin. The battle becomes more complicated by the minute :)
Just wondering where you think "Ocean" was? Given its prominence in Pausanius as related to the place of Epaminondas' death, or his burial place, it would be useful to pin down.
Pausanias doesn't say Epaminondas was buried at Ocean, he just seems to imply he died there (without categorically stating that he did). Pausanias, like Diodorus and Diogenes are problematic in that they give the impression - without explicitly affirming it - that the cavalry battle and the main battle were one and the same. Pausanias puts Ocean 30 stades south of Mantinea, i.e. 5,5km, which is just north of the narrows themselves. Natural place for the cavalry fight but the main battle was clearly a separate action that took place later and happened somewhere else.
Epaminondas BTW could have been buried anywhere, not necessarily at the site of the battle. Tripoli in those days didn't exist as a city and the site seems to have been in the middle of nowhere. It's plausible that Epaminondas may have been buried somewhere more accessible to travellers - and since the cavalry fight was the prelude to the battle, why not there? (though of course we have no certain idea where he actually was buried)
Quote from: Erpingham on March 24, 2023, 03:23:40 PMInteresting thoughts, Justin. The battle becomes more complicated by the minute :)
The battle of Leuktra indeed was simple, and confined to one division of the forces engaged, and therefore does not make the writer's lack of knowledge so very glaring: but that of Mantineia was complicated and technical, and is accordingly unintelligible, and indeed completely inconceivable, to the historian. - Polybius: 12,25
One does try to see the wood in the trees nonetheless.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 24, 2023, 03:57:38 PMEpaminondas BTW could have been buried anywhere, not necessarily at the site of the battle.
Though Pausanius explicitly says he was buried where the armies met.
I agree it is difficult to pin down if Pausanius meant Epaminondas was killed near or even in Ocean, though his implication is that it was nearby is there in the oracle prediction story.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 24, 2023, 04:36:33 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 24, 2023, 03:57:38 PMEpaminondas BTW could have been buried anywhere, not necessarily at the site of the battle.
Though Pausanius explicitly says he was buried where the armies met.
Sorry, yes. Pausanias affirming that Epaminondas was told by an oracle to beware of Ocean would imply that Pausanias is conflating the cavalry fight with the main battle, since he clearly makes Ocean the place of the cavalry battle. It's peculiar that several sources seem to have done this.
One
could argue that the cavalry fight was the beginning of the end for Epaminondas, his defeat there allowing the allies to join up and confront him in a decisive battle. But that would really be straining the text.
Edit: It is possible that Pausanias may have based his account on Diodorus who himself seems to have telescoped events:
For just as he was approaching the unprotected city, one opposite side of Mantineia there arrived the reinforcements sent by Athens, six thousand in number with Hegesileôs their general, a man at that time renowned amongst his fellow citizens. He introduced an adequate force into the city and [here some time should pass]
arrayed the rest of the army in expectation of a decisive battle. [3] And presently the Lacedaemonians and Mantineians made their appearance as well, whereat all got ready for the contest which was to decide the issue and summoned their allies from every direction..
This seems to imply that the Athenians reached Mantinea just in time to stop Epaminondas' cavalry from sacking it, and then immediately deployed for battle against the Theban main army. Which, following Xenophon, clearly wasn't the case. Diodorus' telescoping may have been transformed into conflation by Pausanias with the addition of the flourish about the oracle.
As another aside, I found this article (https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/23073/2/Malmer_Master.pdf) on ancient Tegea, which gives a map of the city walls. Transposing that onto Google Maps indicates that Epaminondas deployed just outside the walls which fits Xenophon perfectly.
(https://i.imgur.com/2KU3v7h.jpg)
Here is the march from the first to second battlefield, a distance of about 7,5km:
(https://i.imgur.com/stlwQ6g.jpg)
How was the march done? The infantry line would double files to open order, then countermarch and continue in open order (permitting individual files to navigate around obstacles) to the new site. The cavalry would follow behind the infantry, acting as a screen against enemy cavalry. Once the infantry reach the new site they would countermarch again to face back east and then double files to reform a solid line. Standard manoeuvres as described by the tacticians.
Working out the initial deployment, has anyone asked why the Argives painted their shields to look like Thebans? (https://i.imgur.com/K7G6iXr.gif)
Hint: this was a seriously tricksy battle.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 24, 2023, 04:06:39 PMThe battle of Leuktra indeed was simple, and confined to one division of the forces engaged, and therefore does not make the writer's lack of knowledge so very glaring: but that of Mantineia was complicated and technical, and is accordingly unintelligible, and indeed completely inconceivable, to the historian. - Polybius: 12,25
One does try to see the wood in the trees nonetheless.
Justin, I continue enjoying your narrative building. Your Polybius quote reinforces impressions formulating in my mind.
If Polybius writes that this battle is "
unintelligible, and indeed completely inconceivable, to the historian" is this any less so 2400 years later?
As one example from your narrative, why is Epaminondas forming line of battle outside of Tegea and marching 11km north to the narrows dismissed as unlikely yet his forming line of battle and then marching west 7.5km (and uphill) with an enemy in the rear accepted? Also, is there no concern for uncovering Tegea to the enemy in a march westwards?
Humans see patterns and causalities where none exists. Without care, it is easy to pick data points or descriptions that fit the desired narrative and dismissing those that do not. This can be seen even when the original source for both is the same.
Is that the situation here? I am not saying that. What I am saying is that analysis and inference require great care to not introduce bias into the results.
Like I say, I am enjoying your exercise very much and gives me plenty to consider.
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 24, 2023, 09:01:29 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 24, 2023, 04:06:39 PMThe battle of Leuktra indeed was simple, and confined to one division of the forces engaged, and therefore does not make the writer's lack of knowledge so very glaring: but that of Mantineia was complicated and technical, and is accordingly unintelligible, and indeed completely inconceivable, to the historian. - Polybius: 12,25
One does try to see the wood in the trees nonetheless.
Justin, I continue enjoying your narrative building. Your Polybius quote reinforces impressions formulating in my mind.
If Polybius writes that this battle is "unintelligible, and indeed completely inconceivable, to the historian" is this any less so 2400 years later?
Polybius IMHO goes a little too far in his criticism of some historians, though his point that the truth matters more in a historian than anything else is valid enough. His attempt to discredit Callisthenes' account of the Battle of Issus backfires badly against him. He has a dog in the fight and it shows.
But yeah, the popular theories of historians 2,400 years later....I'm strongly tempted to agree with him. Having said that one must try to get to the truth as far as possible, knowing when one can't go any further. My approach is to be very slow to dismiss the sources. I take them seriously and do everything possible to reconcile them. I find it really works.
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 24, 2023, 09:01:29 PMAs one example from your narrative, why is Epaminondas forming line of battle outside of Tegea and marching 11km north to the narrows dismissed as unlikely yet his forming line of battle and then marching west 7.5km (and uphill) with an enemy in the rear accepted? Also, is there no concern for uncovering Tegea to the enemy in a march westwards?
The point is that Xenophon is clear that Epaminondas didn't march north but headed west instead. The only reason anyone thinks he marched north is that one feels the battle must have happened at the narrows in order to deserve the name "Battle of Mantinea", the idea being that south of the narrows was Tegean territory. But that is all pure assumption whereas Xenophon is reliable history.
Why did Epaminondas march at all? My take is that he wanted ground in his favour. High ground is very advantageous to hoplites, especially in othismos which, along with Paul Bardunias and others, I maintain was a physical shoving match, and shoving downhill is always easier than shoving uphill. The nearest decent high ground from where he was initially deployed was behind him in the western mountains. So there he went.
Tegea itself was quite safe. It was walled and the city gates were shut after Epaminondas' army left the city. It would have taken a siege to break into it and with Epaminondas nearby that wasn't going to happen.
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 24, 2023, 09:01:29 PMHumans see patterns and causalities where none exists. Without care, it is easy to pick data points or descriptions that fit the desired narrative and dismissing those that do not. This can be seen even when the original source for both is the same.
True. After looking at the established facts or reliable affirmations of writers in Antiquity I form a hypothesis. I then test it to see if any of the data makes that hypothesis inconsistent or contradictory. I try to see what is wrong in my theorising on the understanding that living over 2000 years later makes it impossible to check up on what the writers affirm. If they don't seriously contradict each other (or at least the ones that matter) and if what they say matches geography, military science and any other branch of knowledge that can be brought to bear, and if they confirm my hypothesis, then I cautiously admit the possibility that I might be on to something. ::)
But I always have to be ready to change or dump my hypotheses - hanging on to them because
I must be right is just stupid.
If there is too little data then I reserve judgement or speculate on the understanding it is speculation.
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 24, 2023, 09:01:29 PMIs that the situation here? I am not saying that. What I am saying is that analysis and inference require great care to not introduce bias into the results.
In this case I think we have enough data to form a coherent picture that, being coherent, is very probably true.
Looks like a reasoned, methodical, and scientific approach to your studies.
The more I think about the road "leading from Mantineia to Pallantium" the odder it becomes. The Ocean grove was just north of the narrows. If the narrows was the border between Mantinea and Tegea, then any road from Mantinea crossing into Tegean territory would of necessity be heading to Tegea. Another road can branch off from that one and go to Pallantium, but the principal road should be between the main poleis in the area since it is on their territory. And for sure there weren't two parallel roads from Mantinea, one going to Tegea and the other going to Pallantium. This map makes it clear:
(https://i.imgur.com/sfR0jGA.jpg)
If however there is a common frontier between Mantinea and Pallantium, then one can speak of a road between the two, with another road branching off to Tegea. Like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z25bSQc.jpg)
This does serve to confirm Xenophon (and possibly explain the origin of Tripoli? Speculation mode here).
Can't resist:
Come you back to Mantinea,
Keep your distance from Tegea;
If you start at Pallantium
You'll be soon in Mantinea!
(with apologies to Rudyard Kipling)
It may be worth looking again at the map of 19th century routes Richard found
(http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=3702)
This shows two separate routes, one from Tegea to Mantinaea, the other Pallantium to Mantinaea. They don't have a junction. Now, the situation could be different in ancient times, but it is an alternative approach to speculative lines on a satellite photo.
There is a convenient road between Tegea and Tripolitsa. Did it predate the Tripolitsa settlement? Well it does link to a pass through the mountains, the only one south of Mantinaea, so potentially an ancient route. I agree with your speculation that a junction where two trade routes cross could indeed be the origin of a settlement. Though that would be true whenever the routes were constructed, so isn't probabative.
In a bit of further googling, I found this information about the territory of Tegea
The polis of Tegea controlled the southern and larger part of the karstic plain of Tripolis,
situated at approximately 610-630 meters above sea level. Contrary to the northern
part of the plain, dominated by the polis of Mantineia, the part of the plain controlled by
Tegea is not completely flat, but rather consists of low, undulating hills. Towards the west the
territory bordered on the small polis of Pallantion, while in the east the territory stretched to
the peak of the Mount Parthenion ridge. There is every reason to believe that the foothills
towards the south were in large parts controlled by Tegea and included present-day Mavriki
and Vourvoura, although Sparta may have encroached upon Tegean territory during the
Archaic period and annexed the settlements of Karyai and Oion. Tegea's territory was
therefore quite large, slightly less than 400 km2, and furthermore, a fair part of it was good
agricultural land on the plain.
From
Knut Ødegård :State formation and urbanization at Tegea (https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/66816/%C3%98deg%C3%A5rd-Graz.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=2)
Unfortunately, this is helpful about all the borders but the one with Mantinaea. ::)
Anthony, this is a good bit of sleuthing to find Odegard's paper. It is an interesting read too and provides a sense of the geographical and political attributes of the area. With Tegea's territory listed as about 400 km2, that area is roughly double the size of the Tegean southern part of the plain from the narrows south.
Given the geography of karstic plain of Tripolis and the mention that Tegea controlled the southern portion and Mantineia the northern portion, a reasonable demarcation between the two cities would be the constriction of the valley between the hills near Skopi. With flooding and drainage an issue, perhaps a levee was in place at this point to control flood waters between Tegea and Mantiniea?
For obvious reasons I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. I'll just copy and paste what I said in the other thread: "Nobody knows exactly where the battle was fought. The established tradition, while a 'best guess', at least fits the known facts, and makes sense strategically. Other locations could be proposed, but in the absence of a better fit to known facts, or better strategic sense, there's no point doing so."
That hasn't changed.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 25, 2023, 12:14:35 PMUnfortunately, this is helpful about all the borders but the one with Mantinaea. ::)
For Mantineia's borders (including with Tegea!) see
Mantineia and the Mantinike: Settlement and Society in a Greek Polis
Stephen Hodkinson, Hilary Hodkinson
The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 76 (1981), pp. 239-296 (62 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30103036
p. 242-3
"Its southern boundary, the border with ancient Tegea, lay at or just S. of the narrow stretch of plain between Mt. Krobriza (997 m, also called Kapnistra) and the spur of Mytika (1,oo7 m).10 These were its boundaries in Pausanias' day (viii I1. I, I2. 9). It is clear from the remarks of Thucydides (v 65- 4) that the Tegean border at least must have been similar in the Classical period."
But with n. 10:
"Pritchett 43 challenges the usual assumption that the border lay at the narrowest part of the plain, preferring to locate it along the line of katavothras a little way S. The construction of a watch-tower on the spur of Mytika, probably in the fourth century (Loring op. cit. (n. 3) 82-3; H. Lattermann, 'Nestane und das Argon Pedion', AA xxviii (1913) 395-428, at 425-7; Pritchett 45-6) suggests that the Mantineians expected secure control of that promontory, since it commands an extensive view over the plain of Mantineia, including the town. Several early nineteenth-century travellers discovered remains of a wall near the base of Mytika which some of them interpreted as a border wall. This explanation is unlikely. (Cf. Pritchett 44-5 and Fougeres, MAO 13, 126 n. 2 for alternative explanations and references to earlier interpretations. The remains had disappeared by the time of Fougeres' expedition in the late 1880s.) In view of Thucydides' remarks (v 65. 4) on Mantineian-Tegean struggles over the water at their border, it is reasonable to expect that the border may often have been moved."
QuoteThe construction of a watch-tower on the spur of Mytika, probably in the fourth century (Loring op. cit. (n. 3) 82-3; H. Lattermann, 'Nestane und das Argon Pedion', AA xxviii (1913) 395-428, at 425-7; Pritchett 45-6) suggests that the Mantineians expected secure control of that promontory, since it commands an extensive view over the plain of Mantineia, including the town.
Assuming it was a Mantinaean one. The Tegeans also had watchtowers elsewhere. However, the evidence generally seems to point to the border being somewhere in this area. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a long southern extension of Mantinaean territory past modern Tripoli.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 25, 2023, 09:40:51 AMIt may be worth looking again at the map of 19th century routes Richard found
(http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=3702)
This shows two separate routes, one from Tegea to Mantinaea, the other Pallantium to Mantinaea. They don't have a junction. Now, the situation could be different in ancient times, but it is an alternative approach to speculative lines on a satellite photo.
There is a convenient road between Tegea and Tripolitsa. Did it predate the Tripolitsa settlement? Well it does link to a pass through the mountains, the only one south of Mantinaea, so potentially an ancient route. I agree with your speculation that a junction where two trade routes cross could indeed be the origin of a settlement. Though that would be true whenever the routes were constructed, so isn't probabative.
There goes a beautiful theory. Damn. I should have checked up on ancient route maps.
Edit: Well, well, well. What have we here?
(https://i.imgur.com/StER9WU.jpg)
It might be possible to reconcile the two maps. The original road south from Mantinea led to Pallantium. When Pallantium shrank into insignificance after Second Mantinea it probably made sense to construct another road directly between Mantinea to Tegea as these were now the only two poleis in the area. This is the road Pausanias mentions. So the French survey map of 1832 shows the later road in orange. As the maps stands some of the roads look peculiar if they coexisted at the same time. Look at the two orange and black roads leading north from Mantinea and how they criss-cross over each other.
Quote from: RichT on March 25, 2023, 07:02:50 PM"Pritchett 43 challenges the usual assumption that the border lay at the narrowest part of the plain, preferring to locate it along the line of katavothras a little way S. The construction of a watch-tower on the spur of Mytika, probably in the fourth century (Loring op. cit. (n. 3) 82-3; H. Lattermann, 'Nestane und das Argon Pedion', AA xxviii (1913) 395-428, at 425-7; Pritchett 45-6) suggests that the Mantineians expected secure control of that promontory, since it commands an extensive view over the plain of Mantineia, including the town. Several early nineteenth-century travellers discovered remains of a wall near the base of Mytika which some of them interpreted as a border wall. This explanation is unlikely. (Cf. Pritchett 44-5 and Fougeres, MAO 13, 126 n. 2 for alternative explanations and references to earlier interpretations. The remains had disappeared by the time of Fougeres' expedition in the late 1880s.) In view of Thucydides' remarks (v 65. 4) on Mantineian-Tegean struggles over the water at their border, it is reasonable to expect that the border may often have been moved."
That was actually my thought, just before doing this post. The border probably shifted quite a bit since there was no natural obstacle between Mantinea and Tegea, and nothing says it couldn't - at least at one time or another - have extended far enough south to form a frontier with Pallantium (would it benefit Mantinea to have a frontier with Pallantium?) The question is an open one, so, at the present state of our (non) knowledge, nothing precludes Epaminondas' move westwards from Tegea from ending up in Mantinean territory.
Quote from: RichT on March 25, 2023, 07:02:50 PM"Its southern boundary, the border with ancient Tegea, lay at or just S. of the narrow stretch of plain between Mt. Krobriza (997 m, also called Kapnistra) and the spur of Mytika (1,oo7 m).10 These were its boundaries in Pausanias' day (viii I1. I, I2. 9). It is clear from the remarks of Thucydides (v 65- 4) that the Tegean border at least must have been similar in the Classical period."
Pausanias:
After the sanctuary of Poseidon you will come to a place full of oak trees, called Sea, and the road from Mantineia to Tegea leads through the oaks. The boundary between Mantineia and Tegea is the round altar on the highroad. Pausanias speaks in the present tense, i.e. this is the current boundary imposed by the Roman administration in the 2nd century. It doesn't have much bearing on the boundary half a millenia earlier. He doesn't incidentally say how far south of the oaks the boundary is. It could be at the narrows or further south. Not that that matters. 500 years is too long.
Thucydides:
Meanwhile the Lacedaemonians with the Arcadian allies that had joined them, entered the territory of Mantinea, and encamping near the temple of Heracles began to plunder the country. Here they were seen by the Argives and their allies, who immediately took up a strong and difficult position, and formed in order of battle. The Lacedaemonians at once advanced against them, and came on within a stone's throw or javelin's cast, when one of the older men, seeing the enemy's position to be a strong one, hallooed to Agis that he was minded to cure one evil with another; meaning that he wished to make amends for his retreat, which had been so much blamed, from Argos, by his present untimely precipitation. Meanwhile Agis, whether in consequence of this halloo or of some sudden new idea of his own, quickly led back his army without engaging, and entering the Tegean territory, began to turn off into that of Mantinea the water about which the Mantineans and Tegeans are always fighting, on account of the extensive damage it does to whichever of the two countries if falls into.I've edited this, having misread the translation. Thucydides doesn't precisely say at what point the Spartans crossed the Mantinean frontier and how much further north they moved to plunder Mantinean territory. The border itself could be at the narrows or further south. Where exactly would Agis stop up the Mantinean water supply? The ground appears to be dead flat south of the narrows as far as this point (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4993861,22.409562,2050a,35y,359.06h,25.93t/data=!3m1!1e3), after which there are gently undulating hills. I imagine (can't conclusively prove anything yet) that this is the territory that could be damaged by messing about with the water. Thinking about it, Agis re-enters Tegean territory to "turn out of the course, turn aside, divert" (ἐκτρέπω) the water. How does that affect Mantinean land and not Tegean land? What exactly is he trying to do?
QuoteIt might be possible to reconcile the two maps. The original road south from Mantinea led to Pallantium. When Pallantium shrank into insignificance after Second Mantinea it probably made sense to construct another road directly between Mantinea to Tegea as these were now the only two poleis in the area. This is the road Pausanias mentions.
I think it unlikely that there was no road from Mantinaea and Tegea. Tegea was a much bigger polis than Pallantium. The Mantinaea/Tegea route goes after Tegea is abandoned, The Pallantium road remains because Tripoli/Tripolitsa becomes the more important local centre in the Middle Ages.
If you look at the black & white map, it does look like it is missing a road exactly where the French map puts the Mantinaea/Tegea road. It would cross the Skope/Nestane road where that road has a junction with the road down from Louka, providing Nestane and Louka with road access to the city.
Fascinating though this historical geography is, it doesn't really impact on the battlefield. Whichever route the Thebans took toward Mantinaea, they converge in the border zone south of the Pelagos wood, in the area we have, for convenience, dubbed "the narrows". This would be just north of the disputed wetland which probably formed the Mantinaea/Tegea border.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 24, 2023, 10:53:38 PMWhy did Epaminondas march at all? My take is that he wanted ground in his favour. High ground is very advantageous to hoplites, especially in othismos which, along with Paul Bardunias and others, I maintain was a physical shoving match, and shoving downhill is always easier than shoving uphill.
I don't think anyone doubts the advantages of being uphill, whatever they think about othismos
Quote from: Erpingham on March 26, 2023, 12:00:04 PMQuoteIt might be possible to reconcile the two maps. The original road south from Mantinea led to Pallantium. When Pallantium shrank into insignificance after Second Mantinea it probably made sense to construct another road directly between Mantinea to Tegea as these were now the only two poleis in the area. This is the road Pausanias mentions.
I think it unlikely that there was no road from Mantinaea and Tegea. Tegea was a much bigger polis than Pallantium. The Mantinaea/Tegea route goes after Tegea is abandoned, The Pallantium road remains because Tripoli/Tripolitsa becomes the more important local centre in the Middle Ages.
If you look at the black & white map, it does look like it is missing a road exactly where the French map puts the Mantinaea/Tegea road. It would cross the Skope/Nestane road where that road has a junction with the road down from Louka, providing Nestane and Louka with road access to the city.
Fascinating though this historical geography is, it doesn't really impact on the battlefield. Whichever route the Thebans took toward Mantinaea, they converge in the border zone south of the Pelagos wood, in the area we have, for convenience, dubbed "the narrows". This would be just north of the disputed wetland which probably formed the Mantinaea/Tegea border.
The takeaway from this is that the Institute for Geology and Subsurface Research does
not indicate a road from Mantinea to Tegea direct which is curious since, as you say, Tegea was a much bigger polis than Pallantium. Why is the road missing? Either the institute doesn't know what it's doing, or the fellow who drew up the map for the Hodkinson article forgot to put in a major arterial road, or possibly this: Tegea and Pallantium were old cities whilst Mantinea was relatively new, being founded only around 500BC. Before its foundation there wasn't need for more than one road from the south to its locale, and that would be served quite well by a single road from Pallantium. When Mantinea became a polis, it would be simpler for Tegea to link to the Mantinea-Pallantium road in order to communicate with Mantinea. There really wasn't any need for two major roads going south from Mantinea. From the start I found that concept odd.
And just to repeat, the Mantinea-Tegea direct road came into existence only after the decline of Pallantium made the Pallantium road pretty much obsolete.
QuoteThe takeaway from this is that the Institute for Geology and Subsurface Research does not indicate a road from Mantinea to Tegea
Well, the map in the article doesn't show it. If I copy details from an OS map, the OS have no control of what I choose to copy or miss off. But that's by the by. The road network and road links to other cities don't feature in the article, so I'm not sure the map was really there to inform us about them rather than the physical shape and nature of the Mantinike.
QuoteAnd just to repeat, the Mantinea-Tegea direct road came into existence only after the decline of Pallantium made the Pallantium road pretty much obsolete.
Although how this conclusion can be drawn from the paper isn't clear, as it doesn't discuss relations with Pallantium as far as I can see, and Tegea mainly features in relation to disputes about water courses on the border.
However, this is all rather tangential, as most commentators assume use of a road to the west of Tegea, approximating to the current road at the foot of the mountains through Tripoli, by the Thebans.
Incidentally, the
Mantinaea and Mantinike paper does include rather more discussion of the hoplite class of Mantinaea than it does of roads, for those who might be into a bit of military history. The paper is available for free reading on Jstor.
There's more on the Mantineian watchtowers here:
The Defense Network in the Chora of Mantineia
Matthew P. Maher, Alistair Mowat
Hesperia: 87, 2018, pp. 451-495
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/819893
Executive summary - the Skopi tower is Mantineian, part of a system of watchtowers surrounding Mantineia, built perhaps around 370.
There's also an aside, and map, on the road network:
"As a major polis located on a plain in the center of an extremely large valley, we should expect Mantineia to have a road network more complex than those in areas more tightly restricted by the mountainous topography characteristic of most of Arkadia. Based on the number of gates in the city's fortification circuit and employing the local itinerary of Pausanias, Fougères assumes there must have been a corresponding number of roads leading to the major poleis outside Mantineian territory (see Fig. 1). Based on both the topography of the valley (and Mantineia's position in it), and its relation to eastern Arkadian geography, we can confidently presume the existence of two major roads running south toward Tegea and Pallantion, one road skirting the Anchisia ridge and leading north toward Orchomenos, one heading east toward the plain of Nestane and Argos (via the Skales Pass), one running north–south through the plain of Nestane toward the Portes Pass in the direction of Nemea and Corinth northeast of the city, and at least one other that led toward the Helisson valley and Methydrion to the west."
Note 'assumes' and 'presumes' (albeit confident) - these Greek roads hardly ever survive on the ground, so there is still scope for further dead horse flogging.
And just for fun, here's Mrs T in the Tegean Gate of Mantineia:
100_3766.jpg
Let me make clear that I haven't nailed my colours to the mast as regards Mantinean territory south of the narrows. The only reason for that hypothesis is to explain something to which I am welded: the clear and obvious fact that Xenophon - the only contemporary historian of the battle - puts the battle west of Tegea, not north.
As an alternative approach, putting the sources in date order, when and how did the main engagement come to be called the "Battle of Mantinea"?
Xenophon (430-355BC): He does not affirm it was in Mantinean territory nor does he call it the battle of Mantinea. He does affirm the initial cavalry engagement took place at Mantinea.
Aischenes (389–314 BC): I fought in the battle of Mantineia, not without honour to myself or credit to the city.
Question: which battle is he talking about? Xenophon calls the cavalry engagement a "cavalry battle at Mantinea". In that battle the Athenian cavalry, possibly helped by the 6,000 man contingent of Athenian hoplites, saw off the Theban and Thessalian cavalry. That battle was something for an Athenian to boast of and Aischenes was Athenian. The Athenians did not shine so well at the main battle, being harassed almost to a rout by the Theban cavalry and saved only by the intervention of the Eleian cavalry reserve.
Polybius (200-118BC): But when he tells the story of the battle of Leuktra between the Thebans and Lakedaimonians, or again that of Mantineia between the same combatants, in which Epameinondas lost his life, if in these one examines attentively and in detail the arrangements and evolutions in the line of battle, the historian will appear quite ridiculous, and betray his entire ignorance and want of personal experience of such matters.
.....
So he exhorted the Thebans to exert themselves; and, after a rapid night march, arrived at Mantinea about mid-day, finding it entirely destitute of defenders.
But the Athenians, who were at that time zealously supporting the Lacedaemonians in their contest with the Thebans, had arrived in virtue of their treaty of alliance; and just as the Theban vanguard reached the temple of Poseidon, seven stades from the town, it happened that the Athenians showed themselves, by design, as if on the brow of the hill overhanging Mantinea. And when they saw them, the Mantineans who had been left behind at last ventured to man the wall and resist the attack of the Thebans. Therefore historians are justified in speaking with some dissatisfaction of these events, when they say that the leader did everything which a good general could, but that, while conquering his enemies, Epaminondas was conquered by Fortune.
Polybius, writing two centuries after the events, is clearly conflating the two battles. Epaminondas wasn't "conquered by fortune" due to the failure of his lightning strike at Mantinea but in the main battle afterwards. Notice how Polybius seems to imply the entire Theban army force-marched to Mantinea, not just the cavalry.
Cornelius Nepos: (110-25BC) Finally, when commander at Mantinea, in the heat of battle he charged the enemy too boldly.
Nepos was a Roman biographer writing about three centuries after the battle.
Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC): For just as he was approaching the unprotected city, one opposite side of Mantineia there arrived the reinforcements sent by Athens, six thousand in number with Hegesileôs their general, a man at that time renowned amongst his fellow citizens. He introduced an adequate force into the city and arrayed the rest of the army in expectation of a decisive battle. [3] And presently the Lacedaemonians and Mantineians made their appearance as well, whereat all got ready for the contest which was to decide the issue and summoned their allies from every direction.
A first impression of this text is that the Battle of Mantinea was fought just outside the city walls and is one and the same as the cavalry engagement. Some serious telescoping took place - Hegesileôs foiled the Theban mounted strike against the city (or the lands around it) but there was a lapse of time before the Spartans and Mantineans arrived and everyone deployed for the main battle, wherever that took place. Thus, Diodorus does not affirm the battle took place at Mantinea or even in Mantinean territory.
Plutarch (AD46-119): A few days afterwards a battle was fought near Mantinea, in which Epaminondas had already routed the van of the Lacedaemonians, and was still eagerly pressing on in pursuit of them, when Anticrates, a Spartan, faced him and smote him with a spear, as Dioscorides tells the story.
In the battle of Mantineia he (Agesilaos) urged the Spartans to pay no attention to any of the others, but to fight against Epameinondas, for he said that only men of intelligence are valiant and may be counted upon to bring victory; if, therefore, they could make away with that one man, they would very easily reduce the others to subjection; for these were unintelligent and worthless.
This is nearly half a millennium after the battle.
Pausanias (110-180AD): On reaching Mantineia with his army, he was killed in the hour of victory by an Athenian. In the painting at Athens of the battle of the cavalry the man who is killing Epaminondas is Grylus, the son of the Xenophon who took part in the expedition of Cyrus against king Artaxerxes and led the Greeks back to the sea.
Pausanias clearly conflates the cavalry battle with the main battle.
Diogenes Laertius (3rd century AD): Gryllus was posted with the cavalry and in the battle which took place about Mantinea, fought stoutly and fell, as Ephorus relates in his twenty-fifth book, Cephisodorus being in command of the cavalry and Hegesilaus the strategos. In this battle Epaminondas also fell.
Diogenes conflates the cavalry fight with the main battle.
Of the authors who were contemporaries of the battle, Xenophon does not affirm the battle took place at Mantinea whilst Aischenes is probably referring to the earlier cavalry engagement. Writing two centuries later, Polybius appears to conflate the two battles as does Diodorus (though Diodorus does not categorically do so). Pausanias and Diogenes also conflate the two battles. Nepos and Plutarch may be repeating this conflation.
I'm not a fan of interpreting sources like this but it is necessary to align them with Xenophon. And there's a real problem with the conflation of the cavalry and main battle. Why did so many authors think they were the same battle? I propose that many of the authors saw the cavalry fight as the initial engagement of the main battle, and the name given to the cavalry fight was extended to the main battle, resulting in both melding into one.
PS: I haven't abandoned the hypothesis of Mantinean territory south of the narrows as nothing has appeared that refutes it.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 26, 2023, 07:41:58 PMthe clear and obvious fact that Xenophon - the only contemporary historian of the battle - puts the battle west of Tegea, not north.
But that's where you go wrong - right at the first step - and all the pages of motivated reasoning that follow flow from this.
Quote from: RichT on March 26, 2023, 07:55:28 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 26, 2023, 07:41:58 PMthe clear and obvious fact that Xenophon - the only contemporary historian of the battle - puts the battle west of Tegea, not north.
But that's where you go wrong
Fine, prove it.
BTW the lady looks like she was having fun. :)
Quote from: RichT on March 26, 2023, 07:01:31 PMThere's more on the Mantineian watchtowers here:
The Defense Network in the Chora of Mantineia
Matthew P. Maher, Alistair Mowat
Hesperia: 87, 2018, pp. 451-495
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/819893
Executive summary - the Skopi tower is Mantineian, part of a system of watchtowers surrounding Mantineia, built perhaps around 370.
Just briefly, the Skopi site is natural for a watchtower that surveys the valley south of the narrows, regardless of how much territory in that valley is or isn't Mantinean.
Quote from: RichT on March 26, 2023, 07:01:31 PMAnd just for fun, here's Mrs T in the Tegean Gate of Mantineia:
Excellent photo, Rich! I enjoy seeing others' travel photos of ancient ruins and battlefields.
I will ask (what seems to me) the obvious question.
If there was no road between Mantineia and Tegea, why was this feature called the Tegean Gate? If the main road was to Pallantium, should it not be the Pallantium Gate?
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 27, 2023, 12:10:41 AMIf there was no road between Mantineia and Tegea, why was this feature called the Tegean Gate? If the main road was to Pallantium, should it not be the Pallantium Gate?
Was it called the Tegean Gate in antiquity or is that a modern label?
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 27, 2023, 12:10:41 AMI will ask (what seems to me) the obvious question.
If there was no road between Mantineia and Tegea, why was this feature called the Tegean Gate? If the main road was to Pallantium, should it not be the Pallantium Gate?
Could the Tegean gate have been added later when a road was created between Mantinea and Tegea? We are in hypothetical territory here but it does reconcile the two maps. When exactly the Mantinea-Tegea road came into existence would decide the question. The map from the Hodkinson article does seem to take trouble over its road network: "Roads", "Principal tracks". If it was such an important road why was it left out? The French survey map for its part superimposes roads that were unlikely to have existed at the same time:
(https://i.imgur.com/VJxTOpt.jpg)
I'll leave the whole question of the Mantinea-Tegean border there and look at the deployment next. To repeat my earlier question, why did Epaminondas get the Argives to paint clubs on their shields so as to resemble Thebans? $10,000,000 for the right answer.* ::)
*
Payable in Zimbabwean currency (https://www.ebay.com/itm/374292529436?hash=item572592c11c:g:IVwAAOSwYepjPgs~&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA0KEtdym6xstTweGS0vKXyiUdsd1gwgQuxDoMykhBaun3vnwyrbu5AxRnMeQlrDqETqYKrV7JnYJM38AcIsPEazsWYsTmVkuwE0umkd6GX36NqT7Qfvk49Ya4t2H6vgEajJ8oVgb4fnpO2lgQ%2BbfvCdRakG%2Fs4%2B%2BC%2BoF5DD3CzB4ejeyK9slzxqUZuwIFak4peOx91AGGy1XVh0hA2Tjmm0XGBHndFQ82cetpSE22OmPcE9Xbg%2FIi2tlslRUq7FW36H5NVb2ipMJjHoxk7XjdLPE%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMzLuenORh)
Quote from: Orc65 on March 27, 2023, 01:32:00 AMQuote from: JonFreitag on March 27, 2023, 12:10:41 AMIf there was no road between Mantineia and Tegea, why was this feature called the Tegean Gate? If the main road was to Pallantium, should it not be the Pallantium Gate?
Was it called the Tegean Gate in antiquity or is that a modern label?
I think the name Tegean gate is modern, from what I've read. I don't think we know the actual names.
QuoteFine, prove it.
Come now, Justin, you are well aware we are dealing not dealing with things that can be proven with the current state of knowledge. We are dealing with plausible speculation. Hence you are introducing new speculations to interpret the battle and Richard is disputing them.
For what it's worth, having reread the translation of Xenophon, I don't think he says where the battle was fought. He does say that the Thebans marched westwards rather than towards the enemy and that they looked like they would camp by the mountains, which certainly places them on that side of the plateau before the battle. Where on that side isn't mentioned, as far as I can see, but their reorganisation (that deceives the mantineans they are camping) is said to take place "as soon as" they get to the mountains. They move to attack from this position. Xenophon implies that the Mantinaeans are in a position not far from the Thebans, as they have to rush to deploy when the see them start moving. He is, however, quiet on any supposed Mantinaean advance against Tegea, so we would expect to find them in a blocking position toward the city - by the border perhaps, or maybe covering the two roads coming up from the south.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 27, 2023, 09:36:44 AMQuoteFine, prove it.
Come now, Justin, you are well aware we are dealing not dealing with things that can be proven with the current state of knowledge. We are dealing with plausible speculation. Hence you are introducing new speculations to interpret the battle and Richard is disputing them.
I'm not much of a fan of being told I'm wrong without any attempt to demonstrate why I am wrong.
Ricardus locutus est, causa finita est. Thus far nobody has rebutted my analysis of Xenophon. Richard is welcome to, and if he proves his case I'll be happy to accept it. My job isn't on the line if I'm proved wrong. :o
Quote from: Erpingham on March 27, 2023, 09:36:44 AMFor what it's worth, having reread the translation of Xenophon, I don't think he says where the battle was fought. He does say that the Thebans marched westwards rather than towards the enemy and that they looked like they would camp by the mountains, which certainly places them on that side of the plateau before the battle. Where on that side isn't mentioned, as far as I can see, but their reorganisation (that deceives the mantineans they are camping) is said to take place "as soon as" they get to the mountains. They move to attack from this position. Xenophon implies that the Mantinaeans are in a position not far from the Thebans, as they have to rush to deploy when the see them start moving. He is, however, quiet on any supposed Mantinaean advance against Tegea, so we would expect to find them in a blocking position toward the city - by the border perhaps, or maybe covering the two roads coming up from the south.
Fine. Let's take your reconstruction. The Thebans and Mantineans in this initial and final position:
(https://i.imgur.com/75Nl5Du.jpg)
That puts both armies firmly in Tegean territory. If that's the case then why the "Battle of Mantinea"?
You can move the Tegea-Mantinean frontier south to allow the armies to fight in Mantinean territory:
(https://i.imgur.com/vMNRQJG.jpg)
But in that case what stops you moving it further south to accommodate a battlefield west of Tegea?
QuoteLet's take your reconstruction
This isn't my reconstruction. I wouldn't actually agree with it. Nor is it one of Duncan's, so whose is it?
I'm thinking more along the Kromeyer line
(https://pages.uoregon.edu/mapping/battle_mantinea.jpg)
However, I think there may have been a bit of leeway southwards on the battle site because he is guessing as much as we are. I don't think the Pelagos wood came this far south either, but it may have done. Where I think I would differ is I would see the Thebans echeloned back from the Theban "trireme ram", covering it's flank. The Mantinaeans are stuck - Epamondinas has concentratedd force on their right flank, gambling on caving in their best troops before the rest can wake up and start to manoeuver against their rest of the Theban line, being further hindered by cavalry and light infantry pushed out to neutralise their fastest troops, the cavalry. The Mantinaean right duly caves in and everybody else heads for the woods. Exhausted Thebans, who have lost their higher command and have been marching and fighting all day, set about doing the hoplite thing of formally claiming the field. Nothing that can be proved but , I think, broadly plausible.
So Kromeyer splits his phalanx into two halves with a kilometer or more wide gap between them, attacks the Mantineans with his Thebans at an angle, and has the cavalry fight on the mountain slopes. Right. I would call it a desperately ingenious attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 27, 2023, 12:57:51 PMSo Kromeyer splits his phalanx into two halves with a kilometer or more wide gap between them, attacks the Mantineans with his Thebans at an angle, and has the cavalry fight on the mountain slopes. Right. I would call it a desperately ingenious attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.
The bit with the cavalry and infantry on the slopes is straight outta Xenophon, as is the idea that they are to prevent the Mantinaean left from swinging across to interfere on their the right. I agree about the gap between the two halves - I think he misunderstands Xenophon. Duncan quotes Anderson's critique of this. As I said, I think the Theban army is echeloned to the right of the ram, with the poorest allied troops furthest back - that's what I think Xenophon is saying.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 27, 2023, 01:13:10 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 27, 2023, 12:57:51 PMSo Kromeyer splits his phalanx into two halves with a kilometer or more wide gap between them, attacks the Mantineans with his Thebans at an angle, and has the cavalry fight on the mountain slopes. Right. I would call it a desperately ingenious attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.
The bit with the cavalry and infantry on the slopes is straight outta Xenophon, as is the idea that they are to prevent the Mantinaean left from swinging across to interfere on their the right. I agree about the gap between the two halves - I think he misunderstands Xenophon. Duncan quotes Anderson's critique of this. As I said, I think the Theban army is echeloned to the right of the ram, with the poorest allied troops furthest back - that's what I think Xenophon is saying.
I agree with the echeloning. I'll come back later about the rest. Gotta earn my keep right now.
More Speculation and Google Mapping About...I have found this topic most interesting and has led to virtual exploring of the environs around this area.
As for more speculations:
- I wonder if Epaminodas' grave shown on Google maps is actually the Temple of Poseidon mentioned in the literature as seen along the way from Mantineia to Tegea. Has Poseidon's Temple been located?
- Pelagos. Where is the historical evidence of these copse of oaks north of the "narrows" as we have defined them? Moving south along the Mantineia to Tegea road is a small village to the east of Tripoli of this same name "Pelagos". Is this a coincidence or does this location constitute the remnants of these oak woods? If the Spartans and their allies deployed south of Pelagos as the accounts detail, there is still space for the Thebans to deploy from Tegea to the north to face them.
By my reckoning, the distance between this Pelagos and Tegea is about 30 stadia.
Quote from: JonFreitag on March 27, 2023, 03:19:59 PMTegea road is a small village to the east of Tripoli of this same name "Pelagos". Is this a coincidence or does this location constitute the remnants of these oak woods?
This is a modern name. It appears on the 1832 survey as Bosini, I think. A lot of villages in the area were given Greek names in the 20th century to purge recollection of Turkish and Slavic influence in the Middle Ages, apparently. I suspect the renamers had read Pausanius :)
Add : In case you are wondering at my intimate knowledge of the Tegean Plain, I'm quoting someone who does actually know the ground
During a recent name-reform when many Turkish and Slavic village names in the area were given ancient Greek names,
the small village called Bosin which is right next to this pond was named Pelagos (The old village name
appears on William Loring's map from the end of the 19th century. See Loring, 1895, Pl. I.), but there are
no oak trees anywhere in the vicinity of this village.
Jørgen Bakke : Forty Rivers. Landscape and Memory in the District of Ancient Tegea, p38, n111
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 27, 2023, 07:21:11 AMI'll leave the whole question of the Mantinea-Tegean border there and look at the deployment next. To repeat my earlier question, why did Epaminondas get the Argives to paint clubs on their shields so as to resemble Thebans? $10,000,000 for the right answer.* ::)
Since no-one has yet taken this one up: He didn't.
It's only the Arkadians who are mentioned as painting clubs on their shields:
QuoteFor at the time when he gave them the last order to make ready, saying that there would be a battle, the horsemen eagerly whitened their helmets at his command, the hoplites of the Arcadians painted clubs upon their shields, as though they were Thebans, and all alike sharpened their spears and daggers and burnished their shields.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 27, 2023, 08:56:55 AMQuote from: Orc65 on March 27, 2023, 01:32:00 AMQuote from: JonFreitag on March 27, 2023, 12:10:41 AMIf there was no road between Mantineia and Tegea, why was this feature called the Tegean Gate? If the main road was to Pallantium, should it not be the Pallantium Gate?
Was it called the Tegean Gate in antiquity or is that a modern label?
I think the name Tegean gate is modern, from what I've read. I don't think we know the actual names.
Yes sadly the gates weren't excavated with labels on them naming them :) - Nemean gate is what it's called now (though for the very good reason that it's where the road to Tegea would go out from, unless someone was deliberately laying spaghetti roads to deceive posterity)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 27, 2023, 12:11:10 PMI'm not much of a fan of being told I'm wrong without any attempt to demonstrate why I am wrong. Ricardus locutus est, causa finita est. Thus far nobody has rebutted my analysis of Xenophon. Richard is welcome to, and if he proves his case I'll be happy to accept it. My job isn't on the line if I'm proved wrong. :o
Justin, I and others have wasted many hours telling you what is wrong with your various theories. What good has it ever done? I have better things to do. You can believe what you like - I don't care. Nobody does,
FWIW nobody will 'rebut your analysis of Xenophon'. Your analysis is possible, one of many possibilities. The standard interpretation is also possible - and provides, in the opinion of many, a better fit to the evidence and logic of the situation. You claim that this standard interpretation is incompatible with the account of Xenophon, so the burden of proof is firmly on you to 'prove it'. But, please spare us. (Over and out from me by the way - I'm happy to discuss Mantineia or any other topic with anyone else but I've had my fill of you).
Okey-dokey. Time for some fresh heresies. Looking at Xenophon: after making preparations - including disguising his Arcadians as Theban hoplites - the army exits the city and immediately deploys into line:
For at the time when he gave them the last order to make ready, saying that there would be a battle, the horsemen eagerly whitened their helmets at his command, the hoplites of the Arcadians painted clubs upon their shields, as though they were Thebans, and all alike sharpened their spears and daggers and burnished their shields. But when he had led them forth, thus made ready, it is worth while again to note what he did. In the first place, as was natural, he formed them in line of battle.
A couple of things to note. Firstly, Xenophon's reference earlier to Epaminondas' wisdom in camping within the walls, as this would enable him to observe what his enemy was doing without being observed himself:
For, in the first place, I commend his pitching his camp within the wall of Tegea, where he was in greater safety than if he had been encamped outside, and where whatever was being done was more entirely concealed from the enemy. Furthermore, it was easier for him, being in the city, to provide himself with whatever he needed. Since the enemy, on the other hand, was encamped outside, it was possible to see whether they were doing things rightly or were making mistakes.
When was the enemy encamped outside? Answer: just before the battle. Xenophon is clearly looking ahead here to the moment when Epaminondas is preparing for the main engagement and it was necessary to conceal his preparations (including shield-painting) from the enemy whilst being able to see what they were doing - such as how they were deploying.
But when he had led them forth... "lead forth" translates ἐξάγω - "to lead out [of somewhere]". In this context it refers to the Theban army quitting the city. Which means that immediately on leaving Tegea the Theban army forms a battleline: "In the first place." This clearly excludes an 11km march north to the narrows.
This battleline does not engage the enemy - who is therefore deployed outside Tegea - but marches westwards toward the mountains over against Tegea. The Greek is straightforward: mountains to the west that are opposite/over against Tegea.
Here is my reconstruction of the initial deployment of the two armies. I'll explain the detail in the next post (tired now and who reads a long post anyway?). The Mantinean alliance has a good position with both flanks anchored against mountain slopes and some high ground behind the left wing that they might have already occupied. Both sides' cavalry are deployed in front since there is no need for flank guards - where exactly they deploy and with with what frontage is anyone's guess.
(https://i.imgur.com/BabSp8w.jpg)
Epaminondas retires to the west and ends up here. Both sides deploy thus:
(https://i.imgur.com/Fs8cGbN.jpg)
Edit: yes, I forgot to include the troops that go for the heights on Epaminondas' left flank. Pretend they are there.
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 27, 2023, 07:18:09 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 27, 2023, 07:21:11 AMI'll leave the whole question of the Mantinea-Tegean border there and look at the deployment next. To repeat my earlier question, why did Epaminondas get the Argives to paint clubs on their shields so as to resemble Thebans? $10,000,000 for the right answer.* ::)
Since no-one has yet taken this one up: He didn't.
It's only the Arkadians who are mentioned as painting clubs on their shields:
QuoteFor at the time when he gave them the last order to make ready, saying that there would be a battle, the horsemen eagerly whitened their helmets at his command, the hoplites of the Arcadians painted clubs upon their shields, as though they were Thebans, and all alike sharpened their spears and daggers and burnished their shields.
Typo. I meant the Arcadians. :-[
OK, moderator helmet on. I don't like the direction this is taking. We engage with the arguments, not the arguer. Richard and Justin, I know this is a long standing clash of styles, methods, whatever. However, I suggest we should pull back at this point. By all means continue to debate the battle, the geography, even the reason why the Arcadians painted Theban symbols on their shields (is there an actual answer or just a theory on this?). But hold back on further frustrated outbursts, if you please. Helmet off.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 27, 2023, 07:58:01 PMOK, moderator helmet on. I don't like the direction this is taking. We engage with the arguments, not the arguer. Richard and Justin, I know this is a long standing clash of styles, methods, whatever. However, I suggest we should pull back at this point. By all means continue to debate the battle, the geography, even the reason why the Arcadians painted Theban symbols on their shields (is there an actual answer or just a theory on this?). But hold back on further frustrated outbursts, if you please. Helmet off.
Very well. Promise to be good. :)
Funnily enough, after our rehearsal game we have gone for putting the Tegeans and other Arkadians on the extreme left opposite the Mantineians, with the deep Theban formation opposite the Spartans - roughly as Justin has done, though with the Thebans deeper relative to the other units. We originally tried to cover the Mantineians purely with cavalry and light troops, as I suggested in the article; it didn't work. This was partly down to unlucky dice, and in another game it might have come off; but clearly trying to cover 3,000 or so Mantineian hoplites, plus their and the Spartan cavalry, with 1,600 Theban cavalry and some light infantry is not a tactic guaranteed to succeed, so might not have appealed to an ingenious and thorough general such as Epameinondas (not if he was playing DBMM, anyway).
That gives us something more like the attached than the version from the Conference and in Slingshot.
Are the Tegeans "disguised" as Thebans, though? Xenophon doesn't explicitly say so, and his account of the club-painting reads more like spontaneous enthusiasm to me.
Insomnia, so might as well pass the time doing the deployment.
My second diagram BTW was the initial deployment in the western foothills, before Epaminondas formed up the Theban column. Here's a revised version. This is WIP so it will probably change quite a few times (until my obsession wears off).
(https://i.imgur.com/msR620D.jpg)
This is just as Epaminondas reforms his line and has his men ground their spears. The cavalry are deployed conventionally in front of the infantry in a depth of, say, 6 ranks, maybe less - width of the cavalry contingents is speculative at this point.
Everything here is made of rubber BTW, and can be compressed or stretched, but I think the numbers work to give an overall idea of the dispositions of the two armies. I have based my contingent sizes on Duncan's article with a couple of tweaks, the main one being that IMHO the entire Spartan army was present as Agesilaus had managed to join up with the allies near Tegea without compromising the safety of Sparta. I don't find it odd that he isn't mentioned as commander in this battle. Notice that nobody is mentioned as commander. My own take is that the army was led by committee, as the Athenians weren't about to take orders from the Spartans and vice versa, and in any case Sparta had lost considerable prestige and was a fairly small contingent in a huge army.
The entire Theban line is in a more-or-less uniform depth of about 16 ranks. I doubt hoplite infantry could have deployed wider than about 2km and moved in co-ordination. The Arcadians (not Argives!) are disguised as Thebans and deployed on the extreme left of the line - exactly where the Mantinean coalition would expect a Theban column to come from. In preparation for this the Mantineans and Arcadians have deployed deep on the right wing. This is suggested by the fact that the Athenian cavalry, numbering about 600 horse, deploys 6 deep in front of them (there is no indication they were in front of the Spartans). A cavalry file is 2 yards wide so the total width of the Athenian horse is 200 yards. This makes the depth of the 4,000 or so Mantineans and Arcadians about 20 ranks, enough to stop a Theban column in its tracks, hopefully.
Why do the Mantineans get the place of honour on the right wing? Several possible answers:
- they deserved it since the whole war had been started by them
- they had helped save Sparta's bacon by rescuing their capital
- Sparta (and anyone else) was quite happy to let them be flattened by the Theban column
- a combination of the above three
Epaminondas knows the coalition's plan and is preparing to pull a fast one. He wants to target the Spartans with his column as the rout of the coalition's elite troops will probably precipitate a rout of the entire army. But he needs to conceal where he will form the column, hence the disguise of the Arcadians as Theban hoplites.
The Mantinean coalition has another problem: lack of troops. This may be the biggest battle in Greek history, but Epaminondas has 30,000 infantry and they have 'only' 20,000. Forming deep on the right means they have to thin the line elsewhere to match the frontage of the Thebans. This is done on the centre left, where the 'weaker forces' (not physically weak or demotivated, just thinned out) are deployed only 8 deep whilst the rest of the line deploys 12 deep with the exception of the 20-deep right flank anti-Theban setup.
Athenian cavalry is deployed on the right, Eleian cavalry in the rear as a reserve to help either wing, and the remainder of the cavalry, Spartans and Mantineans, on the left. Epaminondas puts his Theban cavalry on his left, the Eubian and Locrian horse on the right, and splits his Thessalian cavalry between the two wings. He hides some hoplites behind/among the right wing cavalry to hold the flank as the main phalanx in that sector is going to disappear.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 27, 2023, 12:44:49 PMQuoteLet's take your reconstruction
This isn't my reconstruction. I wouldn't actually agree with it. Nor is it one of Duncan's, so whose is it?
I misunderstood you, apologies.
For the course of the battle IMHO one can create a coherent picture from all the sources (which is nice). The frontage of units works on the assumption that one infantry file had a width of about a meter whilst a cavalry file has a width of about 2 meters. The width to depth ratio in the diagrams is not to scale. Let me split this over several posts.
Original position.
(https://i.imgur.com/rB94cZn.jpg)
The Theban and Thessalian cavalry demonstrate in front of the allied line, creating a cloud of dust that obscures Epaminondas' infantry. The entire phalanx (with the exception of the Arcadians and nine subunits of Thebans next to them) wheels by square-shaped subunits - "successive companies" - into column (Xenophon). Presuming the phalanx was 16 deep to begin with, that means that each subunit measured 16x16 men, i.e. a syntagma. The subunits still in line - the 9 Theban units and those of the Arcadians - advance about 16 yards or so. The column of the remaining units advances until the second nine Theban units are largely behind the first nine. These second nine then wheel into line behind the first nine. The units now in line (18 Theban and the Arcadians) advance about another 16 yards. The column advances again until the last 9 Theban units are largely behind the others in line. These last 9 units wheel into line behind the 18 Theban units already in line. The Theban column is now formed, about 48 ranks deep and 144 files wide - a theoretical 6912 men.
The Tegeans wheel into line and take up position alongside the Theban column. The Euboeans continue to advance in column until they are past the Arcadians. They wheel into line, taking up position on the left flank. They (or some of them plus mercenaries, leaving the rest in the main phalanx) will be used to secure the heights on the Theban left.
The rest of the column, led by the Locrians, advances until it is next to the Tegeans. The column then wheels into line alongside the Tegean-Theban-Arcadian battleline.
As the Theban column advances, the units on either side of it echelon back, creating a wedge that advances " prow on, like a trireme". Epaminondas, at the right front corner of the column (the normal place for a unit commander) plans to "strike and cut through" the enemy phalanx at the spot covered by the Spartans, and push the rest of the phalanx to rout in consequence.
Notice how the Theban right has been completely denuded of hoplites save those on the hills. Epaminondas had anticipated this, relying on the screen of cavalry and hoplites "to prevent the Athenians on the left wing from coming to the aid of those who were posted next to them", "desiring to create in them the fear that if they proceeded to give aid, these troops would fall upon them from behind". The outflanking would be done by the cavalry whilst the infantry hoplites pin the Athenians in place.
(https://i.imgur.com/vaUTPXs.jpg)
Quote from: Duncan Head on March 27, 2023, 09:16:28 PMFunnily enough, after our rehearsal game we have gone for putting the Tegeans and other Arkadians on the extreme left opposite the Mantineians, with the deep Theban formation opposite the Spartans
I'll bet Epameinondas would have loved a redo as well :). I think the way the battle plays out makes sense if the Thebans hit the force from Mantinea on the right. Xenophon tells us that: 23] "Meanwhile Epaminondas led forward his army prow on, like a trireme, believing that if he could strike and cut through anywhere, he would destroy the entire army of his adversaries." Why not say "take out the Spartans" if that is what the intent was? The numerous quotes describing Theban advancement beyond the battle line and the Spartans hitting the section of the Theban force where Epameinondas was stationed makes sense if the Theban deep formation moved through the Mantinean line and past the Spartan section of the line on their right.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 29, 2023, 06:40:20 PMQuote from: Duncan Head on March 27, 2023, 09:16:28 PMFunnily enough, after our rehearsal game we have gone for putting the Tegeans and other Arkadians on the extreme left opposite the Mantineians, with the deep Theban formation opposite the Spartans
I'll bet Epameinondas would have loved a redo as well :). I think the way the battle plays out makes sense if the Thebans hit the force from Mantinea on the right. Xenophon tells us that: 23] "Meanwhile Epaminondas led forward his army prow on, like a trireme, believing that if he could strike and cut through anywhere, he would destroy the entire army of his adversaries." Why not say "take out the Spartans" if that is what the intent was? The numerous quotes describing Theban advancement beyond the battle line and the Spartans hitting the section of the Theban force where Epameinondas was stationed makes sense if the Theban deep formation moved through the Mantinean line and past the Spartan section of the line on their right.
Didorus does affirm that the Theban column engaged the Spartans: "he led his battalion in the charge and was the first to hurl his javelin, and hit the commander of the Lacedaemonians." "The Lacedaemonians, overawed by the prestige of Epameinondas and by the sheer weight of the contingent he led, withdrew from the battle".
Also Nepos: "He was recognised by the Lacedaemonians, and since they believed that the death of that one man would ensure the safety of their country, they all directed their attack at him alone"
Justin implies it as well: "the Spartan youth, incited by the heroism and glorious deeds of the old men, could not be prevented from promptly engaging in the field."
Plutarch affirms the Thebans engaged the Spartans: "A few days afterwards a battle was fought near Mantinea, in which Epaminondas had already routed the van of the Lacedaemonians, and was still eagerly pressing on in pursuit of them, when Anticrates, a Spartan, faced him and smote him with a spear" "In the battle of Mantineia he (Agesilaos) urged the Spartans to pay no attention to any of the others, but to fight against Epameinondas"
The Theban column would not be as wide as the Spartan deployment, and if Epaminondas struck the right half of the Spartan line and pushed ahead of his Tegean support, that would leave the Spartans on his right free to target him.
Xenophon doesn't specifically mention Epaminondas taking out the Spartans but just piercing the line somewhere possibly because he had sympathy for Sparta and didn't want to emphasis too much the fact that it was the Spartans who were defeated by Epaminondas. He had served under Spartan commanders and had a friendship with Agesilaus.
Let me wrap up my reconstruction of the course of the battle. I think it possible to reconcile pretty much all the source material with a couple of exceptions which aren't really important.
Having completed his formation of the Theban column, Epaminondas recalls the Theban and Thessalian cavalry to the left wing in front of the Arcadians. The cavalry form a line 16 ranks deep matching the width of the Athenian cavalry deployment, and the horses are interspersed with hamippoi and peltasts (Xenophon) and slingers (Diodorus). It was a "strong column" according to Xenophon. Why "strong"? Xenophon was an experienced military man and he would have known that depth in itself added nothing to the effectiveness of cavalry. But it was the interjection of the missile troops that made the difference: the more depth, the more missile troops could be inserted, the more potent the cavalry unit's missile capability became.
FYI I envisage a mixed cavalry-infantry formation thus:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ajmfn0K.jpg)
The Thessalian, Locrian and Eubian cavalry charge the Spartan and Mantinean horse on the other flank. There's no description of the cavalry battle there but Diodorus affirms that "both sides divided the cavalry and placed contingents on each wing." One can assume that the Spartans and Mantineans were routed off the field as there is no mention of them later in the battle when the Eleians came to the rescue.
(https://i.imgur.com/T9a2ErY.jpg)
Having routed the Spartan and Mantinean cavalry, the Eubian, Locrian the Thessalian horse move to the right of the Hoplites deployed in the hills. I suspect the hoplite line was thin - perhaps as little as 4 deep (hence about 2000 hoplites) - as the plan was for the cavalry to move around to the rear of the Athenians if they advanced against the hoplites. Hit from both sides, the Athenians would be disordered and fixed in place, unable to continue any further. A similar idea was supposed to happen on the other flank, with the Theban and Thessalian cavalry outflanking the Mantinean hoplites once the Athenian cavalry was dispatched, and hitting the Mantineans from front and back. In both cases the idea came unstuck.
The Euboeans occupy the heights, ready to support the outflanking of the Mantineans, whilst the Theban and Thessalian horse engage the Athenian cavalry with a blitz of missiles.
The Theban column continues to advance and the entire line is now echeloned. The allied line also advances with the Spartans to contest the higher ground in the centre right.
(https://i.imgur.com/Hwn6xmt.jpg)
The Athenian cavalry are outfought and retire in good order back through the Mantineans and Arcadians. To do this the hoplites had to be in open order, with 4-foot wide gaps between each file through which the horses could pass....like a knife through butter (couldn't resist!). Once the Athenians are through, the files double to intermediate order, presenting a solid front against the enemy.
Shouldn't wargaming rules cater for this?
The Theban column smashes into the right half of the Spartan line.
(https://i.imgur.com/gqBA1uO.jpg)
The allied line on the left continues to advance and the Athenian hoplites draw near to the thin hoplite line deployed in the hills. The Thessalian and other cavalry form column and begin to head for the rear of the Athenians. This is something Thessalians would have been particularly good at as they habitually used the rhombus formation, enabling them to change direction in 90 degree increments at a moment's notice, making them highly manoeuvrable.
Meanwhile on the other flank the Theban column drives the Spartans back. The Thessalian and Theban cavalry and LI hammer the Mantineans with a shower of missiles.
(https://i.imgur.com/rY4lPnx.jpg)
The Thessalian, eubian and Locrian cavalry move to the rear of the Athenian foot, now engaged with the hoplites, and begin to disorder them, forcing their rear ranks to turn and face the threat hence weaking their efforts to the front. The Athenians are soon in trouble: "the Athenians were exhausted and had turned to flee" (Xenophon).
On the other wing the Theban column contined trundling forwards whilst the Theban and Thessalian cavalry began to outflank the Mantineans "Now the Theban horse did not follow up the fugitives, but, assailing the phalanx opposing them, strove zealously to outflank the infantry." But the Athenian horse had reordered themselves and moved towards the right flank, turning to face the Thessalians (I suspect they led the outflanking column) and Euboeans on the heights. The allies were beginning to pull the first of several rabbits out of the hat.
The light troops interspersed with the Thessalian and Theban horse fall back out of the cavalry units and move in column towards the other flank. This was probably planned from the start by Epaminondas, as he knew his right would need all the help it could get.
(https://i.imgur.com/WZTOyRB.jpg)
The cavalry busy outflanking the Mantinean foot are forced to fall back before the Athenian horse, who attack the Euboeans on the heights. I don't know how Greek cavaly could defeat hoplites in a frontal fight, especially on uneven ground, but they managed it. Rabbit number two.
On the left wing, the Eleian cavalry finally decide which side needs them most and move across to face the enemy cavalry harassing the Athenians. Rabbit number three.
(https://i.imgur.com/VsmFY04.jpg)
The Thessalian, Locrian and Eubian cavalry on the left pull back smartly from the Eleian cavalry (or are routed by them). This leaves the Athenian hoplites free to engage the thin line of enemy hoplites in front of them, now reinforced by the light troops from the other flank. Even reinforced, the hoplites cannot withstand the Athenians who cut through them, killing many: "Furthermore, while the intermingled footmen and the peltasts, who had shared in the victory of the cavalry, did make their way like victors to the region of the enemy's left wing, most of them were there slain by the Athenians." (Xenophon)
On the right the Athenian cavalry destroy the Euboeans and seize the heights - possibly the Euboeans had formed column to move around to the rear of the Mantineans and were caught like that by the Athenians. The Theban and Thessalian cavalry has - presumably - pulled back by this time through the Arcadians who engage the Mantineans. Or possibly the Thebans and Thessalians continue to pepper the Mantineans.
Meanwhile the Theban column continues to plough forward. It separates from the Tegeans who themselves cannot make any progress against the Spartans (naturally). At this point Epaminondas is through the Spartan line and in the open. He is recognised by nearby Spartans who target him with their spears and kill him. It appears that hoplites had reverted to the homeric practice of using throwing spears.
At this point - after a tussle over Epaminondas' body - both sides decide to call it a day.
(https://i.imgur.com/rvXpse2.jpg)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMDidorus does affirm that the Theban column engaged the Spartans: "he led his battalion in the charge and was the first to hurl his javelin, and hit the commander of the Lacedaemonians." "The Lacedaemonians, overawed by the prestige of Epameinondas and by the sheer weight of the contingent he led, withdrew from the battle".
I am with Polybius on Ephorus. That any Theban hoplite threw his "javelin" at the commander of the Lakedaimonians renders this account something to be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion.
"[2] For the most capable foot-soldiers of that time, Boeotians and Lacedaemonians, whose lines were drawn up facing one another, began the contest, exposing their lives to every risk. After the first exchange of spears in which most were shattered by the very density of the missiles, they engaged with swords. And although their bodies were all locked with one another and they were inflicting all manner of wounds, yet they did not leave off; and for a long time as they persisted in their terrible work, because of the superlative courage displayed on each side, the battle hung poised. [3] For each man, disregarding the risk of personal hurt, but desirous rather of performing some brilliant deed, would nobly accept death as the price of glory. [4] As the battle raged severely for a long time and the conflict took no turn in favour of either side, Epameinondas, conceiving that victory called for the display of his own valour also, decided to be himself the instrument to decide the issue. So he immediately took his best men, grouped them in close formation and charged into the midst of the enemy; he led his battalion in the charge and was the first to hurl his javelin, and hit the commander of the Lacedaemonians. Then, as the rest of his men also came immediately into close quarters with the foe, he slew some, threw others into a panic, and broke through the enemy phalanx. [5] The Lacedaemonians, overawed by the prestige of Epameinondas and by the sheer weight of the contingent he led, withdrew from the battle, but the Boeotians kept pressing the attack and continually slaying any men who were in the rear rank, so that a multitude of corpses was piled up."
The foregoing makes little sense as a standard hoplite battle, but it mirrors in some ways Coronea, with the "second phase coming on the heels of a routed Mantinea.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMAlso Nepos: "He was recognised by the Lacedaemonians, and since they believed that the death of that one man would ensure the safety of their country, they all directed their attack at him alone"
Yes, as they routed the Mantineans and tried to pass on their unshielded side.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMJustin implies it as well: "the Spartan youth, incited by the heroism and glorious deeds of the old men, could not be prevented from promptly engaging in the field."
Sure, but this does not mention who or how they engaged. Additionally, what does it mean for Spartans who walked into battle to engage promptly?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMPlutarch affirms the Thebans engaged the Spartans: "A few days afterwards a battle was fought near Mantinea, in which Epaminondas had already routed the van of the Lacedaemonians, and was still eagerly pressing on in pursuit of them, when Anticrates, a Spartan, faced him and smote him with a spear"
We would first have to define what the VAN of 12 ranks of hoplites is.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AM"In the battle of Mantineia he (Agesilaos) urged the Spartans to pay no attention to any of the others, but to fight against Epameinondas"
Yes, again as they pass, when Agesilaus is more likely to be in Proximity to Epameinondas.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMThe Theban column would not be as wide as the Spartan deployment, and if Epaminondas struck the right half of the Spartan line and pushed ahead of his Tegean support, that would leave the Spartans on his right free to target him.
Sure, this is possible, but because I think it unlikely that the Tegeans were on the left for a variety of reasons, I see no reason to invoke this explanation.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMXenophon doesn't specifically mention Epaminondas taking out the Spartans but just piercing the line somewhere possibly because he had sympathy for Sparta and didn't want to emphasis too much the fact that it was the Spartans who were defeated by Epaminondas. He had served under Spartan commanders and had a friendship with Agesilaus.
Meh, the ol' Xenophon was covering for his friends does not work for me so much. He describes many routs of Spartiates and the idiocy of his friend Agesilaus.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 31, 2023, 05:45:18 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMDidorus does affirm that the Theban column engaged the Spartans: "he led his battalion in the charge and was the first to hurl his javelin, and hit the commander of the Lacedaemonians." "The Lacedaemonians, overawed by the prestige of Epameinondas and by the sheer weight of the contingent he led, withdrew from the battle".
I am with Polybius on Ephorus. That any Theban hoplite threw his "javelin" at the commander of the Lakedaimonians renders this account something to be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion.
"[2] For the most capable foot-soldiers of that time, Boeotians and Lacedaemonians, whose lines were drawn up facing one another, began the contest, exposing their lives to every risk. After the first exchange of spears in which most were shattered by the very density of the missiles, they engaged with swords. And although their bodies were all locked with one another and they were inflicting all manner of wounds, yet they did not leave off; and for a long time as they persisted in their terrible work, because of the superlative courage displayed on each side, the battle hung poised. [3] For each man, disregarding the risk of personal hurt, but desirous rather of performing some brilliant deed, would nobly accept death as the price of glory. [4] As the battle raged severely for a long time and the conflict took no turn in favour of either side, Epameinondas, conceiving that victory called for the display of his own valour also, decided to be himself the instrument to decide the issue. So he immediately took his best men, grouped them in close formation and charged into the midst of the enemy; he led his battalion in the charge and was the first to hurl his javelin, and hit the commander of the Lacedaemonians. Then, as the rest of his men also came immediately into close quarters with the foe, he slew some, threw others into a panic, and broke through the enemy phalanx. [5] The Lacedaemonians, overawed by the prestige of Epameinondas and by the sheer weight of the contingent he led, withdrew from the battle, but the Boeotians kept pressing the attack and continually slaying any men who were in the rear rank, so that a multitude of corpses was piled up."
The foregoing makes little sense as a standard hoplite battle, but it mirrors in some ways Coronea, with the "second phase coming on the heels of a routed Mantinea.
This is one of the passages I take with a grain of salt. The Theban column formed up according to Epaminondas' plan and with him at its head, so the idea that he formed it
ad hoc after the battle had been raging for some time does smack of dramatic licence. However several sources affirm that the hoplites used throwing spears and the fact that several took credit for killing Epaminondas confirms this. If they had all been fighting hand-to-hand then only the Spartan in front of Epaminondas could have killed him and everyone would know who that was.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 31, 2023, 05:45:18 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMAlso Nepos: "He was recognised by the Lacedaemonians, and since they believed that the death of that one man would ensure the safety of their country, they all directed their attack at him alone"
Yes, as they routed the Mantineans and tried to pass on their unshielded side.
Or as one half of the Spartans were routed leaving Epaminondas exposed to the other half.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 31, 2023, 05:45:18 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMJustin implies it as well: "the Spartan youth, incited by the heroism and glorious deeds of the old men, could not be prevented from promptly engaging in the field."
Sure, but this does not mention who or how they engaged. Additionally, what does it mean for Spartans who walked into battle to engage promptly?
True. I took it as the Spartans being the first to engage the Theban line - other units engaging later as they advanced against the inclined hoplites. But it is rather vague.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 31, 2023, 05:45:18 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMPlutarch affirms the Thebans engaged the Spartans: "A few days afterwards a battle was fought near Mantinea, in which Epaminondas had already routed the van of the Lacedaemonians, and was still eagerly pressing on in pursuit of them, when Anticrates, a Spartan, faced him and smote him with a spear"
We would first have to define what the VAN of 12 ranks of hoplites is.
What is clear is that Epaminondas with the Theban column is driving the
Spartans back, not the Mantineans.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 31, 2023, 05:45:18 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AM"In the battle of Mantineia he (Agesilaos) urged the Spartans to pay no attention to any of the others, but to fight against Epameinondas"
Yes, again as they pass, when Agesilaus is more likely to be in Proximity to Epameinondas.
Not quite. Agesilaus would have told his men before the battle started to take on Epaminondas (no possibility of giving that kind of instruction in mid-battle). Thus he knew the Theban column was headed for the Spartan part of the line. Agesilaus himself would not have taken part in the fighting being an old man in his 80s.
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 31, 2023, 05:45:18 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMThe Theban column would not be as wide as the Spartan deployment, and if Epaminondas struck the right half of the Spartan line and pushed ahead of his Tegean support, that would leave the Spartans on his right free to target him.
Sure, this is possible, but because I think it unlikely that the Tegeans were on the left for a variety of reasons, I see no reason to invoke this explanation.
Do tell about the variety of reasons. :)
Quote from: PMBardunias on March 31, 2023, 05:45:18 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMXenophon doesn't specifically mention Epaminondas taking out the Spartans but just piercing the line somewhere possibly because he had sympathy for Sparta and didn't want to emphasis too much the fact that it was the Spartans who were defeated by Epaminondas. He had served under Spartan commanders and had a friendship with Agesilaus.
Meh, the ol' Xenophon was covering for his friends does not work for me so much. He describes many routs of Spartiates and the idiocy of his friend Agesilaus.
Can you give examples? It would be interesting to see the context. This battle is different in that Sparta's military reputation was definitively eclipsed as was that of Agesilaus.
Oh, and one other problem with having the Thebans engage the Mantineans rather than the Spartans. The Thessalian and Theban cavalry drove the Athenian horse back through their own infantry: "even in their retreat they did not break their own phalanx". The Thessalians and Thebans then engage that phalanx: "Now the Theban horse did not follow up the fugitives, but, assailing the phalanx opposing them, strove zealously to outflank the infantry." Which phalanx was that? If the Theban column was engaged with the Mantineans at the extreme right of the allied line, then the Thessalians and Thebans would have nobody to engage, nor would the Athenian cavalry have anyone to pass through.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 31, 2023, 06:47:16 AMHowever several sources affirm that the hoplites used throwing spears and the fact that several took credit for killing Epaminondas confirms this. If they had all been fighting hand-to-hand then only the Spartan in front of Epaminondas could have killed him and everyone would know who that was.
If you really believe that early 4th century hoplites regularly threw spears, outside of the telling exceptions like on the slope at Munychia, then I doubt we will come to agreement on much.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMNot quite. Agesilaus would have told his men before the battle started to take on Epaminondas (no possibility of giving that kind of instruction in mid-battle). Thus he knew the Theban column was headed for the Spartan part of the line. Agesilaus himself would not have taken part in the fighting being an old man in his 80s.
I don't know, he went off to Egypt after this. He was surely more spry than I am and I just marched all over Plataia in full panoply. If a man can call for "one more step" and be heard by those around him, another can yell "kill that particular dude!" to the guys in front of said dude.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMDo tell about the variety of reasons. :)
In short, from my experience you would need to form such a deep phalanx on the end of the line of the parataxeis. It would be exceedingly difficult to drag adjacent taxeis along in the wedge you drew above. They always fracture along unit lines. This is why we can see taxeis right beside eachother moving in different speeds (Spartans and anyone beside them) or different directions (most battles somewhere in the middle of the battleline as they win on the right and lose on the left). The Thebans won, yet lost this battle because of the inability for their flanking units to keep up with them. I believe the whole reason Epameionondas attacked as he did was to use the terrain to protect his left flank. That would be much better protection than Tegeans.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMCan you give examples? It would be interesting to see the context. This battle is different in that Sparta's military reputation was definitively eclipsed as was that of Agesilaus.
Oh, and one other problem with having the Thebans engage the Mantineans rather than the Spartans. The Thessalian and Theban cavalry drove the Athenian horse back through their own infantry: "even in their retreat they did not break their own phalanx". The Thessalians and Thebans then engage that phalanx: "Now the Theban horse did not follow up the fugitives, but, assailing the phalanx opposing them, strove zealously to outflank the infantry." Which phalanx was that? If the Theban column was engaged with the Mantineans at the extreme right of the allied line, then the Thessalians and Thebans would have nobody to engage, nor would the Athenian cavalry have anyone to pass through.
You are really going to make me quote such common descriptions by Xenophon as "yea the Spartiates got their asses handed to them, but they had been drinking after all" at Leuktra and "Agiselaus surely did not take the wisest course" when he met the Thebans head on at second phase Coronea.
As for the cavalry. The contingents on the Mantinean side broke and ran behind their own phalanx, which was engaged with the Thebans.
Diod 85.8 "on the other flank both cavalry forces lashed at one another and the battle hung for a short time in the balance, but then, because of the number and valour of the Boeotian and Thessalian horsemen, the contingents on the Mantineian side were forced back, and with considerable loss took refuge with their own phalanx"
Quote from: PMBardunias on April 04, 2023, 01:08:09 AMIf you really believe that early 4th century hoplites regularly threw spears, outside of the telling exceptions like on the slope at Munychia, then I doubt we will come to agreement on much.
We have two sources that affirm Epaminondas was killed by a thrown spear:
As missiles flew thick and fast about him, he dodged some, others he fended off, still others he pulled from his body and used to ward off his attackers.
they saw Epaminondas himself fall valiantly fighting, struck down by a lance (sparo) hurled from afar.I'm not saying that early 4th century hoplites regularly threw spears, but the sources seem to indicate that at least some Spartan hoplites did in this battle. It's at least possible the Spartans tried rear rank missile support as a refinement - the late Romans ended up doing the same thing. I like to reconcile the sources if possible.
Quote from: PMBardunias on April 04, 2023, 01:08:09 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMNot quite. Agesilaus would have told his men before the battle started to take on Epaminondas (no possibility of giving that kind of instruction in mid-battle). Thus he knew the Theban column was headed for the Spartan part of the line. Agesilaus himself would not have taken part in the fighting being an old man in his 80s.
I don't know, he went off to Egypt after this. He was surely more spry than I am and I just marched all over Plataia in full panoply. If a man can call for "one more step" and be heard by those around him, another can yell "kill that particular dude!" to the guys in front of said dude.
Oh sure, he was fit and healthy for his age, but I just can't see an octogenarian holding an aspis in the front rank of a phalanx and taking part in an othismos shoving match whilst stabbing at the chap in front of him. Call it a failure of imagination.
Quote from: PMBardunias on April 04, 2023, 01:08:09 AMIn short, from my experience you would need to form such a deep phalanx on the end of the line of the parataxeis. It would be exceedingly difficult to drag adjacent taxeis along in the wedge you drew above. They always fracture along unit lines. This is why we can see taxeis right beside eachother moving in different speeds (Spartans and anyone beside them) or different directions (most battles somewhere in the middle of the battleline as they win on the right and lose on the left). The Thebans won, yet lost this battle because of the inability for their flanking units to keep up with them. I believe the whole reason Epameionondas attacked as he did was to use the terrain to protect his left flank. That would be much better protection than Tegeans.
I see the Arcadians on the Theban left rather than the Tegeans (who would have held station on the Theban right). The Arcadians were fronted by a deep cavalry formation reinforced with peltasts and slingers. That was a sufficient flank guard for the Theban column.
As regards the wedge, I do see the line fracturing along unit lines, i.e. the inclined line would be stepped rather than a smooth front. Inclined lines were definitely a thing as the tacticians make clear. It's simple enough to tell the unit commanders: "keep pace with the back rank of the unit to your left." Simpler in fact than telling them: "wheel to your left and take up station behind the unit now in front of you to form a column." Which they were capable of doing.
Quote from: PMBardunias on April 04, 2023, 01:08:09 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on March 30, 2023, 02:34:05 AMCan you give examples? It would be interesting to see the context. This battle is different in that Sparta's military reputation was definitively eclipsed as was that of Agesilaus.
Oh, and one other problem with having the Thebans engage the Mantineans rather than the Spartans. The Thessalian and Theban cavalry drove the Athenian horse back through their own infantry: "even in their retreat they did not break their own phalanx". The Thessalians and Thebans then engage that phalanx: "Now the Theban horse did not follow up the fugitives, but, assailing the phalanx opposing them, strove zealously to outflank the infantry." Which phalanx was that? If the Theban column was engaged with the Mantineans at the extreme right of the allied line, then the Thessalians and Thebans would have nobody to engage, nor would the Athenian cavalry have anyone to pass through.
You are really going to make me quote such common descriptions by Xenophon as "yea the Spartiates got their asses handed to them, but they had been drinking after all" at Leuktra and "Agiselaus surely did not take the wisest course" when he met the Thebans head on at second phase Coronea.
The sources affirm that the Theban column attacked and drove back the Spartans, so why Xenophon doesn't make that clear is up for discussion. I hypothesise that on this occasion he didn't want to rub it in as it was such a definitive humiliation for Sparta. He had some reason.
Quote from: PMBardunias on April 04, 2023, 01:08:09 AMAs for the cavalry. The contingents on the Mantinean side broke and ran behind their own phalanx, which was engaged with the Thebans.
Diod 85.8 "on the other flank both cavalry forces lashed at one another and the battle hung for a short time in the balance, but then, because of the number and valour of the Boeotian and Thessalian horsemen, the contingents on the Mantineian side were forced back, and with considerable loss took refuge with their own phalanx"
Sure. The Theban column had engaged the Spartans whilst the Theban and Thessalian cavalry attacked the Athenian cavalry deployed in front of the Mantinean hoplites. The Athenians pulled back through the hoplites to escape the missile barrage they were getting from the light infantry interspersed within the Theban/Thessalian horse. The upshot is that the Theban column did not engage the extreme right of the enemy line as that would make no sense of the Athenian cavalry taking refuge with their own phalanx.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 04, 2023, 07:32:23 AMWe have two sources that affirm Epaminondas was killed by a thrown spear:
Given the circumstances of Epaminondas' death seem very uncertain (was he killed by a Spartan, a Mantinaean or an Athenian cavalryman, for example) it might be incautious to build too much about Spartan tactics from these passages.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 04, 2023, 11:05:35 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on April 04, 2023, 07:32:23 AMWe have two sources that affirm Epaminondas was killed by a thrown spear:
Given the circumstances of Epaminondas' death seem very uncertain (was he killed by a Spartan, a Mantinaean or an Athenian cavalryman, for example) it might be incautious to build too much about Spartan tactics from these passages.
What's interesting is that several people were able to claim credit for Epaminondas' death, which does chime with several individuals chucking spears at him from a distance and nobody being quite sure who had delivered the killing blow. In fact a Spartan, a Mantinean or an Athenian cavalryman
could have done it as they were all in the vicinity. I would need something more conclusive to justify discarding two sources like that.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 04, 2023, 12:14:39 PMI would need something more conclusive to justify discarding two sources like that.
I didn't suggest discarding them, just using them cautiously. In this case, critical analysis should leave you with an impression that what actually happened to Epaminondas was uncertain in the years after his death. What the majority view of the sources is that he was struck down in the midst of the infantry combat, carried alive from the field and died a short time after. Who killed him and how is uncertain. There is little to build the idea of new hoplite tactics here.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 04, 2023, 01:10:25 PMQuote from: Justin Swanton on April 04, 2023, 12:14:39 PMI would need something more conclusive to justify discarding two sources like that.
I didn't suggest discarding them, just using them cautiously. In this case, critical analysis should leave you with an impression that what actually happened to Epaminondas was uncertain in the years after his death. What the majority view of the sources is that he was struck down in the midst of the infantry combat, carried alive from the field and died a short time after. Who killed him and how is uncertain. There is little to build the idea of new hoplite tactics here.
Well.....the majority view seems to be that he was killed by a thrown spear. But we can leave it at that. :)
BTW IMHO (love the acronyms) the tomb of Epaminondas should be somewhere around here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5073181,22.3655031,3a,60y,160.95h,81.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjTxmGEaHLmtPoeH7Lcr5LA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?authuser=0).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 06, 2023, 08:03:47 AMWell.....the majority view seems to be that he was killed by a thrown spear. But we can leave it at that. :)
Out of 13 sources given by Duncan, you found two that support your thrown spear theory. Even if we ignore those that don't mention Epaminondas' death, mentions of spear thowing remain a minority. However, I don't think there is much point in continuing to pursue this and, as you propose, we can leave it there.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 06, 2023, 09:44:32 AMQuote from: Justin Swanton on April 06, 2023, 08:03:47 AMWell.....the majority view seems to be that he was killed by a thrown spear. But we can leave it at that. :)
Out of 13 sources given by Duncan, you found two that support your thrown spear theory. Even if we ignore those that don't mention Epaminondas' death, mentions of spear thowing remain a minority. However, I don't think there is much point in continuing to pursue this and, as you propose, we can leave it there.
OK. Final, final point: of the 5 sources that mention Epaminondas getting killed, 2 affirm it was by a thrown spear, 2 don't say how he was killed, and one says either by a spear (thrown or not isn't specified) or by a sword. So that's 2 for, 1/2 against. And now I'll definitely leave it. 🤞 🙄