SoA Forums

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

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

which Jonh C. Rolfe translated as

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

I suspect these may be the 'hippakontistai' Arrian mentions in III.24.1 when first formed (a 'taxis', incidentally) and subsequently on several occasions (list here (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=i%28ppakontisth%2Fs&target=greek&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0530&expand=lemma&sort=docorder)).

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 20, 2016, 06:04:30 AM
Do I gather they're never heard of under the Successors?

I don't think they are, no.

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

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

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

Just a thought.

Marek Jan Olbrycht (https://www.academia.edu/1492980/First_Iranian_Units_in_the_Army_of_Alexander_the_Great) makes the point (see p.67 and following for his paper) that the hippakontistai were used as if they were one of Alexander's elite contingents, taking the field with the Companions and occasionally Hypaspists, Argianes etc.  He obviously found them really useful, much more so than one might expect from a collection of ordinary native javelin cavalry.  At the same time, there is no other obvious contingent on which we can pin the dimachae label.  Hence Occam's razor and my train of thought.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 20, 2016, 12:09:32 PM
We have tended to assume that hippakontistai are hipp-akontistai, or javelin-throwing cavalry.  Might Arrian instead have intended them as hippa-kontistai, or mounted men with a kontos?

Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 20, 2016, 12:13:11 PM
Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

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

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

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

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 20, 2016, 01:16:10 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 20, 2016, 12:13:11 PM
Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

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

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

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 20, 2016, 01:25:22 PM
That's my point. If they were, as Patrick suggests, named for kontoi rather than akontia, they ought be called hippokontistai. They aren't, so Patrick's idea doesn't seem to fly philologically.

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

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 20, 2016, 12:13:11 PM
Surely horse-lancers would've been hippokontistai?

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

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 20, 2016, 01:16:10 PM

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

Although Diodorus seemed to think they should be:

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

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

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

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 20, 2016, 09:25:39 PM
One would imagine so, yes.  Equally, one might imagine javelin cavalry as hippakontiztai, from akontizein.  I am not sure we can place too much contrary faith in a single letter if a basic observation is sound.

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

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

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 20, 2016, 09:25:39 PM
One would imagine so, yes.  Equally, one might imagine javelin cavalry as hippakontiztai, from akontizein.  I am not sure we can place too much contrary faith in a single letter if a basic observation is sound.  The essential question is of course whether the basic observation is sound.

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

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

PR?

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

QuoteThe concept of mounting infantry was not particularly new.

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

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 21, 2016, 06:45:02 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 20, 2016, 09:25:39 PM
One would imagine so, yes.  Equally, one might imagine javelin cavalry as hippakontiztai, from akontizein.  I am not sure we can place too much contrary faith in a single letter if a basic observation is sound.

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

Quote from: RichT on April 21, 2016, 09:03:30 AM
Besides which (AFAIK), kontos is never used of Alexander's army (or for any army before the Parthians, earlier uses all referring to ordinary poles of various sorts).

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

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 21, 2016, 09:08:28 AM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 20, 2016, 09:25:39 PM
The question I have is: why call them dimachae if they can only fight effectively one way, i.e. on foot? 

PR?

Seriously?

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

If the basic concept is a dual-use solider (four legs good, two legs also good) then being inept at one of the two fundamental roles rather destroys the point of the concept.  This is the main problem I have with the idea of dimachae as mounted infantry with a twist.  The secondary problem is that our faithful Arrian seems to mention only two instances of Alexander putting infantry on horseback - 500 eclectic elite footmen during the pursuit of Darius and 800 apparently more homogenous footsoldiery when chasing down the Aspasians, Gureans and Assacenians - and this hardly seems sufficiently frequent or consistent for consideration as a new troop type.

Quote

QuoteThe concept of mounting infantry was not particularly new.

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

Egypt was putting men on horseback without them necessarily being cavalry-capable at the time of the Exodus; regarding Greek examples, Mr JK Anderson (http://www.jstor.org/stable/503478?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) can probably summarise the situation better than I can.  (Not being JSTOR registered I cannot read the article so could end up with metaphorical ovum on my visage, but the blurb suggests something there.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 21, 2016, 11:49:31 AM
Well, that's sort of Patrick's objection, isn't it? If the mounted infantry are a mere "romantic expedient", then when Pollux describes dimachai as a new troop-type, is he thinking of something else entirely?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Jim Webster on April 21, 2016, 12:06:45 PM
I would ask just how reliable Pollux was as a source.

Well, the wiki you quote also says:

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

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

True.

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

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 21, 2016, 12:27:45 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 21, 2016, 11:49:31 AM
Well, that's sort of Patrick's objection, isn't it? If the mounted infantry are a mere "romantic expedient", then when Pollux describes dimachai as a new troop-type, is he thinking of something else entirely?

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 21, 2016, 10:44:08 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: RichT on April 21, 2016, 01:42:46 PM
"We don't really know" - the motto of the true ancient historian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us explore the idea a little further.

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

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

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

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

Patrick

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

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

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

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 22, 2016, 09:20:36 AM
There is thus (to my mind) no insuperable objective to Duncan's suggestion, and my main reservation would be that any time the 'dimachae' were activated it would strip Alexander's better infantry of some or all of their officers, to the detriment of their effective functioning.  This would not matter so much if they were just following on, but would complicate matters as and when the infantry were brought into action.

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

Quote from: RichT on April 22, 2016, 09:29:02 AM'Dimachai/ae' as far as I know only occurs these three times - Diod 5.33.5, Pollux and Curtius

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

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

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

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

Though his definition of hamippoi is

<ἅμιπποι>· δύο ἵπποι συνεζευγμένοι

Two horses yoked together

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

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 21, 2016, 10:18:11 PM
, assuming only that the quartermasters could rustle up 300 pairs of riding-boots in a hurry; the only other change in equipment is that he's left his cuirass and greaves off.)

This does present an interesting question, just what did armies carry in the way of spares. We know at least one Roman Republican army had enough spare shields to produce pseudo triarii.
I'd assume that given the importance of some pieces of kit, boots, shields, spears/javelins, they'd be carried.

There is also the question of what it takes to create an effective mounted soldier, and this would seem to require more than just leaving off the greaves and sandals and donning a pair of boots (which might incidentally be a reason for a possible hypaspist to be wearing these on the Alexander sarcophagus: after, all, who hunts while wearing greaves?).

If anyone unaccustomed to riding has undertaken a long, hard ride for any length of time (e.g. in pursuit of an escaping Achaemenid monarch, or for less exalted cross-country purposes) they will be aware that at the end of the process the rider is sore in places which prevent his effectual functioning as an infantryman.  Posture and harmony with the horse's motion are important, and require familiarity (a common Napoleonic Russian cavalryman's insult concerning a mounted infantryman was: "A dog astride a fence.")

This is one reason I am inclined to consider the dimachae as cavalry with dismounted fighting capability rather than either infantry trained to fight mounted or infantry mounted without training in mounted combat.  Diodorus' dimachae are described thus:

Quote"Able as they are to fight in two styles, they first carry on the contest on horseback, and when they have defeated the cavalry they dismount, and assuming the rôle of foot-soldiers they put up marvellous battles." - Diodorus V.33.5
(dimakhai d' ontes, epeidan apo tōn hippōn agōnisamenoi nikēsōsi, katapēdōntes kai tēn tōn pezōn taxin metalambanontes thaumastas poiountai makhas.)

Curtius simply states:

Quote"But rest was necessary for his wearied men, therefore to 6,000 elite horsemen he added 300 of the troops called dimachae.  These carried heavier armour on their backs but rode on horses; when the occasion and situation demanded, they fought on foot." - V.13.8
(Sed fatigatis necessaria quies erat: itaque delectis equitum vi milibus CCC, quos dimachas appellabant, adiungit. Dorso hi graviora anna portabant, ceterum equis vehebantur: cum res locusque posceret, pedestris acies erant.)

As Duncan observes, Curtius' dimachae are not specified as cavalry, though the implication is that they are such: cavalrymen with foot-fighting armour and capability.  Unlike Arrian, Curtius says nothing about cavalrymen being dismounted to provide mounts for infantrymen, and practically implies that the dimachae are an already-existing unit.

One may note in passing that 300 was a traditional strength for Alexander's cavalry units such as Paeonians and the Ile Basilike (Royal Guard Companions).

Comparing Curtius' and Arrian's accounts shows that Alexander added the dimachae before the day he dismounted 500 cavalry to mount the 500 'officers of the infantry and others'.  1) Curtius has him learn the situation from Bagistanes, reach the village where Bessus deposed Darius, catch Darius' interpreter, confirm Darius' deposition and arrange his pursuit contingent of 6,000 cavalry and 300 dimachae.  2) Then Orsines and Mithracenes arrive and detail a short-cut, so at evening Alex sets out with 'a lightly-burdened troop of horsemen' (cum expedita equitum), ordering the phalanx to follow with all possible speed.  3) 300 stadia later, he meets 'Brochubelus' (probably Antibelus), son of Mazaeus, who tells him Bessus and Darius are 200 stadia distant.  4) He pursues and comes up with Bessus' disorderly army, whereupon Bessus murders Darius and flees.

Arrian has him 1) learn the situation from Bagistanes and Antibelus, take the companions, Prodromoi and his 'toughest and nimblest infantry' (tōn pezōn tous eurōstotatous te kai kouphotatous) and reach the said village, where he confirms Darius' deposition from an unspecified source and continues the pursuit with what he has (Companions, Prodromoi and the toughest/nimblest infantry).  2) He enquires about and learns of a short cut, and realising that the pace would be too much for his infantry, he mounts 500 of the best by dismounting 500 of his cavalry.  3) and 4) He pursues, comes up with Bessus' straggling army, whereupon Bessus murders Darius and flees.

Close comparison of these accounts disqualifies the 500 mounted infantry as possible dimachae (Curtius has the dimachae added at 1) while Arrian's infantry are not mounted until 2), following the disclosure of the short cut, but also introduces a new and hitherto unsuspected dimachae candidate (embarrassingly for my earlier assumption, Arrian does not mention hippakontistai at this juncture).

The new and overlooked candidate is actually fairly obvious in retrospect: the Prodromoi.

300 is a familiar prodromoi unit size; the prodromoi are also known interchangeably as sarissophoroi, which associates them with an infantry-type weapon; a scouting role would mean that like Xenophon's cavalry (in his Cavalry Commander) they would have to be prepared to dismount for certain activities; they are also about the only contingent left in Alex's pursuit force which we have not so far considered.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 23, 2016, 11:52:38 AM
... a scouting role would mean that like Xenophon's cavalry (in his Cavalry Commander) they would have to be prepared to dismount for certain activities ...

Actually Xenophon does not specify that cavalry should dismount for the activities I envisaged, namely raids and ambushes; he is keen on cavalry operating with infantry in fights against opposing cavalry, but that is another matter.

Quote from: Jim Webster on April 22, 2016, 04:48:42 PM
This does present an interesting question, just what did armies carry in the way of spares. We know at least one Roman Republican army had enough spare shields to produce pseudo triarii.
I'd assume that given the importance of some pieces of kit, boots, shields, spears/javelins, they'd be carried.

Xenophon, Cavalry Commander 8.4, has this recommendation:

"And since bits and saddle-cloths are fastened with straps, a cavalry leader must never be short of them, for at a trifling expense he will make men in difficulties efficient."

Quote from: Jim Webster on April 22, 2016, 04:48:42 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 21, 2016, 10:18:11 PM
, assuming only that the quartermasters could rustle up 300 pairs of riding-boots in a hurry; the only other change in equipment is that he's left his cuirass and greaves off.)

This does present an interesting question, just what did armies carry in the way of spares. We know at least one Roman Republican army had enough spare shields to produce pseudo triarii.
I'd assume that given the importance of some pieces of kit, boots, shields, spears/javelins, they'd be carried.

Didn't Roman marching armies have most of their equipment on baggage animals and carts? The infantry may well have marched with the bare minimum of equipment such as a shield, spear/pilum/javelin, sword and perhaps a helmet, the rest being on the animals/carts.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 23, 2016, 11:52:38 AMClose comparison of these accounts ...

... is probably a waste of time given that they come from such different source-traditions?

Quote from: valentinianvictor on April 27, 2016, 03:33:52 PM
Didn't Roman marching armies have most of their equipment on baggage animals and carts? The infantry may well have marched with the bare minimum of equipment such as a shield, spear/pilum/javelin, sword and perhaps a helmet, the rest being on the animals/carts.

Marius' mules?  Or is that just old soldiers moaning?

Quote from: Duncan Head on April 27, 2016, 04:08:46 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 23, 2016, 11:52:38 AMClose comparison of these accounts ...

... is probably a waste of time given that they come from such different source-traditions?

Well, it was the technique initially employed by my esteemed interlocutor.  I do but follow in the footsteps of the master. ;)

Quote from: Erpingham on April 27, 2016, 04:22:45 PM

Quote from: valentinianvictor on April 27, 2016, 03:33:52 PM
Didn't Roman marching armies have most of their equipment on baggage animals and carts? The infantry may well have marched with the bare minimum of equipment such as a shield, spear/pilum/javelin, sword and perhaps a helmet, the rest being on the animals/carts.

Marius' mules?  Or is that just old soldiers moaning?

Marius made his soldiery carry their own baggage.  This apparently was in the long and general run of events the exception rather than the rule; the norm seems to have been that a solider carried his own kit (including shield, helmet, weaponry and 'entrenching tool') while on the march - and often also a couple of stakes for the nightly palisade - but tents and cooking utensils would follow in the baggage train.  Rations are more of a question-mark, the obvious distribution being that the marching soldier would carry one day's food while the baggage train would have a week or so (when full).

During the Empire, a unit would march either with the usual load or as expediti, i.e. carrying a bare minimum of equipment basically limited to armour and weapons.  No stakes, no entrenching tools, just armour, helmet, pila (or later Empire equivalent), sword, shield and dagger.  (This is actually my best guess rather than a clear source statement so I would avoid quoting it as fact, simply as logical likelihood.)

Such at any rate seems to be the general pattern.  Late Empire soldiers had it easy compared to their Early Empire brethren: they seem to have carried their armour (if any) and weaponry but otherwise let the baggage train take the strain.  By the time of the Byzantine Empire even armour was being carried in the baggage, but Byzantine armies had a more extensive scouting system so the need for infantry to don armour in a hurry rarely arose.