As has been rehearsed here before, one of the problems with the battle of Chaironeia is that although many modern historians write of Alexander charging the Theban Sacred Band at the head of his Companion cavalry, no ancient source explicitly says whether he was on horseback or on foot.
Conor Whately's A Sensory History of Ancient Warfare mentions (in passing, in the chapter about Issus) a recent study that suggests the skeletons of the Sacred Band discovered beneath the Lion monument show the traces of wounds delivered from above, suggesting that they did indeed fall to attacking cavalry.
The study is by Maria Liston (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=w8E66kgAAAAJ&hl=en); it is "Skeletal Evidence for the Impact of Battle on Soldiers and Non‐Combatants" (https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=w8E66kgAAAAJ&citation_for_view=w8E66kgAAAAJ:4DMP91E08xMC), published in Lee Brice (ed.) New Approaches to Greek and Roman Warfare (2020) (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1118273338/). Liston's work was (before it was published in full) one of the sources for Sears and Willeke's 2016 article "Alexander's Cavalry Charge at Chaeronea, 338 BCE" (https://www.academia.edu/28915719/Alexanders_Cavalry_Charge_at_Chaeronea_338_BCE) - whether this one has been mentioned in our previous discussions I can't recall.
I don't think that this wound evidence helps to determine whether the charge was delivered frontally or into the gap in the line suggested by Hammond's classic study, but it does make the idea that Alexander was leading cavalry look convincing again.
I noticed that Maria Liston is giving an online talk on the subject on 8th November .
https://www.archaeological.org/event/death-comes-to-the-theban-sacred-band-skeletons-from-the-battle-of-chaironeia-338-bc-3/
Very interesting and thanks for the heads up of the talk.
I think we have talked about the Sears/Willeke article before - I don't think I've seen the Liston one though. Without actually reading it, three cases of sword cuts to the top of the head out of 254 skeletons doesn't seem very significant to me, or very good evidence of anything much at all. I also wonder (having not read Hammond either for a while) why it's thought these are the Sacred Band, given that the Sacred Band supposedly fell where the Polyandrion is, on the other side of the valley.
And on a tangent, it makes me mad beyond words that "Though 254 skeletons were initially excavated from the Lion enclosure in the nineteenth century, only those bones that showed clear signs of battle trauma were preserved". Archaeology as vandalism at its worst (well, nineteenth century, maybe it was antiquarianism). Better to have left the bodies in the ground than plundered and discarded them. At least I would hope that modern archaeologists would do better - though dumping the bones in boxes and putting them in the storage facility of some museum is not much better. The Sacred Band (if it is they) deserved better - whoever they were, they deserved better. (Rant over).
ETA: Previous brief discussion here: http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2544.msg30515#msg30515
I too would like to see the article. What was, for example, the actual number of trauma-featuring bones preserved and what were they? I suspect that the antiquarians would have missed a great deal of wound trauma (it often features as notches or nicks in e.g. long bones or ribs) and only collected the gross trauma examples. Three skulls out of 254 is a very small number to base a theory that a unit was destroyed in a formed state purely by charging cavalry - perhaps there is more evidence of "blows from above" in other parts of the sample?
Overall, I thought the paper was quite good. Keegan's cavalry theory is just that - he hadn't made a specialist study of cavalry or horse psychology - so it has long been questioned . The idea that you needed a long two handed pike to resist cavalry otherwise you would be ridden over can be questioned.
I'm just picking flowers and admiring the scenery... 💐
Edit: It does seem prima facie to be less than absolutely convincing.
Still without having read Liston, in Sears/Willeke it says:
Quote
Though 254 skeletons were initially excavated from the Lion enclosure in the nineteenth century, only those bones that showed clear signs of battle trauma were preserved. Liston estimates that between 10 and 18 individuals are represented in the surviving collection. The evidence from the bones provides chilling testimony to the horrifically violent experience of combat at Chaeronea in 338. Most importantly for the present study, three of the preserved skulls exhibit sharp force trauma wounds, all of which were delivered to the top of the head from above, by a long, straight sword blade.
So, not many.
The 'Keegan cavalry theory' is an interesting case of how an almost throwaway comment by one author can be picked up and repeated over and over until it achieves the status of known fact. As you say, it has long been questioned.
Incidentally my copy of Whately's book has just plopped through my letterbox. A slim volume (though the art of brevity is something that continues ot elude me), but looks interesting.
QuoteSo, not many.
Whoops - missed that. So, we have a maximum of 18 individuals who may have cavalry related trauma out of 254. That said, a lot of the trauma would have been from wounds caused by sarissa thrusts (we have an ancient source that states this) and it could be difficult to tell whether these were delivered by foot or mounted sarissas, or actually see them in the skeletal evidence at all, even if the antiquarians hadn't disposed of it.
Interesting subject, archaeological pathology.
There are some interesting further details of the burial mounds and their excavation in John Ma's article (https://www.academia.edu/13120847/_Chaironeia_338_Topographies_of_Commemoration_), discussed by Sear's and Willeke.
In relation to Richard's earlier complaints, it seems that the remains were less casually treated than appeared, and were collected and shipped to Athens for study (though what happened to them after the death of the excavator shortly afterwards, like the fate of his notes, is unclear).
Ma's description does show that many of the wounds were from infantry combat, including sword cuts to the legs. If the remains do represent a coherent group, they would appear to have fought both cavalry and infantry, though in what sequence it is impossible to tell.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2021, 04:14:39 PM
If the remains do represent a coherent group, they would appear to have fought both cavalry and infantry, though in what sequence it is impossible to tell.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered the possibility that the Macedonians lined up their phalanx and cavalry one behind the other to provide a sort of "double whammy" effect?
Quote from: Cantabrigian on October 06, 2021, 04:30:51 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2021, 04:14:39 PM
If the remains do represent a coherent group, they would appear to have fought both cavalry and infantry, though in what sequence it is impossible to tell.
I wonder if anyone has ever considered the possibility that the Macedonians lined up their phalanx and cavalry one behind the other to provide a sort of "double whammy" effect?
One could certainly suggest a failed cavalry attack followed up by an infantry assault, or an infantry assault with the
coup de grace delivered by cavalry, or even surrounding the enemy and attacking with cavalry and infantry together (which would have parallels with Gaugamela, IIRC). The risk is always being too firm with any of these speculations and building grand tactical schemes from them on flimsy foundations.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2021, 04:14:39 PM
There is some interesting further details of the burial mounds and there excavation in John Ma's article (https://www.academia.edu/13120847/_Chaironeia_338_Topographies_of_Commemoration_), discussed by Sear's and Willeke.
Yup, just read it! I hurried over the bits about flanged butt spikes...
Quote
In relation to Richard's earlier complaints, it seems that the remains were less casually treated than appeared, and were collected and shipped to Athens for study (though what happened to them after the death of the excavator shortly afterwards, like the fate of his notes, is unclear).
Yes, I may have been somewhat unfair; the events of 1940 also seem to have been relevant. But Ma says at least some of the bodies were reburied in situ and are presumably still there. My sentiments rather match those of the Macmillan guide Ma quotes ("it would have been better to leave these heroes in the graves they earned so nobly") - perhaps some were.
Quote
Ma's description does show that many of the wounds were from infantry combat, including sword cuts to the legs. If the remains do represent a coherent group, they would appear to have fought both cavalry and infantry, though in what sequence it is impossible to tell.
The trouble with battlefield archaeology - it promises so much yet is always so tantalisingly inconclusive.
thanks for the link Duncan, extremely interesting
Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2021, 04:14:39 PMMa's description does show that many of the wounds were from infantry combat, including sword cuts to the legs.
In fact is it only the sword-cuts to the shinbones that are clearly indicative of infantry-on-infantry combat?
That doesn't seem an especially likely type of wound to be commonly delivered by a Macedonian pike-phalanx, Hamippoi supporting a cavalry-charge, perhaps? 8)
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 06, 2021, 06:32:46 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2021, 04:14:39 PMMa's description does show that many of the wounds were from infantry combat, including sword cuts to the legs.
In fact is it only the sword-cuts to the shinbones that are clearly indicative of infantry-on-infantry combat?
That doesn't seem an especially likely type of wound to be commonly delivered by a Macedonian pike-phalanx, Hamippoi supporting a cavalry-charge, perhaps? 8)
In the absence of an accessible copy of the Maria Liston paper with full details of the skeletal evidence, its hard to make definitive statements of which wounds could be caused by which troop types. Three head wounds are considered cavalry wounds, the leg wounds have to be infantry. Others might be assigned to either. Unlike me, of course, you are an expert on this stuff and will be aware of the evidence for the use of
hamippoi in connection with Macedonian cavalry. Were
hamippoi used to back up cavalry in some kind of "double whammy"?
Quote from: Erpingham on October 06, 2021, 06:48:33 PMUnlike me, of course, you are an expert on this stuff and will be aware of the evidence for the use of hamippoi in connection with Macedonian cavalry. Were hamippoi used to back up cavalry in some kind of "double whammy"?
The idea that some hypaspists could fight as
hamippoi to back up the Companions is not exactly mainstream (hence I feel slightly cheeky in referring to it) but has been proposed by Waldemar Heckel (http://www.ancienthistorybulletin.org/subscribed-users-area/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/AHBDec2013_15_10.pdf). (The Agrianes might be another candidate.)
If there is anything in it, it wouldn't be so much a double wotsit as the infantry mixing it in the midst of the cavalry.
While we have Anthony confused, let's throw in this bit from 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 apparently the Companions could back themselves up, so to speak.
(Note
en passant that apparently everyone was to bring his shield, including the guys who remained on horseback.)
Macedonian hamippoi (or perhaps better, hamippoi in Macedonian armies) are fairly mainstream. Nick Sekunda has always supported the idea. The problem is that in the major battles the Hypaspists always seem to be described as deployed in separate units - it's hard to square that with them being hamippoi. Perhaps some were, but most were deployed separately.
(In wargame terms, hamippoi are AFAIK somewhat underrepresented.)
Either way, the apparent preponderance of sword cuts to the skeletons (without reading the article, I don't know the proportions) is (to me) a little surprising, whether they are caused by infantry, cavalry or hamippoi. Maybe it's just that spear wounds, being mostly puncture wounds, didn't show up on the bones and so were discarded.
QuoteEither way, the apparent preponderance of sword cuts to the skeletons (without reading the article, I don't know the proportions) is (to me) a little surprising, whether they are caused by infantry, cavalry or hamippoi. Maybe it's just that spear wounds, being mostly puncture wounds, didn't show up on the bones and so were discarded.
Non-cranial puncture wounds are more difficult to detect and a fatal puncture wound could leave no sign on the bones at all, so I suspect this is the explanation. There was one cranial puncture wound in the descriptions, IIRC, caused by a butt spike. Perhaps a finishing off blow on a man on the ground, so not necessarily indicative of infantry combat.
On the subject of who caused the cuts to the shin, it seems to me it would be a fairly classic wound for a hoplite as it was a cut under the rim of the
aspis. It's a common type in the Wisby material and some other Scandinavian wound-trauma graves, usual considered a swing at the unarmoured legs to bring a man down, then hack him to death with repeated blows to the head. Without thefull report we can't tell whether the shin wounds are associated with a hacked about skull to see if this was the case here.
So, we seem so far to have generated a number of ideas (assuming this is a coherent group, rather than collected scattered bodies)
*Cavalry charge followed by phalanx attack
*phalanx attack followed by cavalry charge
*Phalanx and cavalry combined attack
*Cavalry attack with hamippoi in support
*Cavalry attack in which half cavalry dismount in support
Quote
On the subject of who caused the cuts to the shin, it seems to me it would be a fairly classic wound for a hoplite as it was a cut under the rim of the aspis.
I suppose, though the classic hoplite would be wearing greaves and so should be protected against such cuts. Cuts to the thigh I can understand, but it seems surprising to me (speaking from a position of near total ignorance about the technicalities) that a Greek/Macedonian infantryman with a fairly short sword could easily reach and attack his opponent's shins. (Evidently some did, so I'm not questioning it, just saying 'Oh!').
Of course in the standard model of hoplite combat, such wounds would be impossible, at least before one side broke.
Quote
*Cavalry charge followed by phalanx attack
*phalanx attack followed by cavalry charge
*Phalanx and cavalry combined attack
*Cavalry attack with hamippoi in support
*Cavalry attack in which half cavalry dismount in support
I think that covers every permutation! Plus the possibility that they aren't in fact a coherent group, and that different things happened to different members of the group at different times and places. They idea that they are a coherent group is AFAICT based on the theory that these are the Sacred Band and that in turn is based largely on their number (254 recovered, plus unknown number not recovered) which makes ballpark 300. That doesn't seem a very firm identification, so it's hard to draw any conclusions.
FWIW I never had any problem with the possibility that Alexander led cavalry and cavalry were instrumental in the defeat of the Sacred Band - but there just isn't enough evidence either way.
Quote from: RichT on October 07, 2021, 10:07:28 AM
FWIW I never had any problem with the possibility that Alexander led cavalry and cavalry were instrumental in the defeat of the Sacred Band - but there just isn't enough evidence either way.
Agreed. This is a case of best-fit hypothesizing rather than being able to come to proven and irrefutable conclusions.
Two more thoughts (slow morning):
1. Presumably, archaeologically there would be no way to distinguish between a sword cut to the head from an infantryman against an opponent brought to his knees by an earlier cut to the legs, and a sword cut to the head from a cavalryman against a standing opponent (unless the two wounds were present on the same skeleton, and it seems the skeletons in this case are too jumbled to be sure, but I don't know).
2. Add to the list of possible permutations:
* Frontal phalanx attack combined with flanking cavalry attack (with or without hamippoi).
This still seems to me to be the most likely, given the totality of considerations.
And to thicken the plot, I found this from James Romm, The Sacred Band: Three Hundred Theban Lovers Fighting to Save Greek Freedom (hate the title):
"The Band's remains include pairs of feet that seem to have been deliberately hacked off, presumably by the Macedonian victors, and buried separately. Even complete skeletons show signs of hacking on the shins, done, in the opinion of osteologist Maria Liston, while the victim was prone, most likely already dead."
In which case, no evidence here for inf/cav.
And on another tangent, calling them 'the Band' seems a bit unfortunate. 'Band' has too strong musical connotations. 'Lochos' in this context might be better translated as 'Regiment' or 'Battalion'. Well, too late now.
Talking of the burials, we do have this sketch
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/606f5afb6799adcdec4b54a5/master/w_1600,c_limit/210419_r38249.jpg)
If they are the same ones they don't seem to have their feet cut off
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 07, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
If they are the same ones they don't seem to have their feet cut off
No they don't - though maybe only some did (eg three, like the number of sword cuts from above). Can't tell for the bottom row. At some point I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy the blasted book.
That they were buried in formation (and possibly eight ranks deep) is itself interesting.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 07, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
If they are the same ones they don't seem to have their feet cut off
I can only see two with missing feet - second row, seventh and eighth from the left, counting complete skeletons.
It is clear the burial was done quite soon after death, when skeletons were articulated and complete, and in an orderly fashion.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 07, 2021, 12:23:32 PM
It is clear the burial was done quite soon after death, when skeletons were articulated and complete, and in an orderly fashion.
Greeks generally (and in this Macedonians are likely to have been included, with some differences) were keen on the orderly recovery and burial of the dead of both sides after a battle. The losing side requesting from the victors permission to bury their dead was part of the formal process of battle, and was how the defeated admitted and acknowledged defeat. In some cases (Athenians) the bodies were brought back home, in others they were buried (or - Macedonians - burned) on the battlefield.
Which being so, and if these are specifically the Sacred Band, we would expect there to be other Boeotian dead buried somewhere.
Some (but not all) of the Liston article is visible on Google Books, and here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_RHPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=%22Skeletal+Evidence+for+the+Impact+of+Battle+on+Soldiers+and+Non%E2%80%90Combatants%22+feet&source=bl&ots=DY6K97poW2&sig=ACfU3U3CbfwZU0XaUcw1pPhkOURMYgsIPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdi-K5nrjzAhVVP-wKHQ9OCM0Q6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Skeletal%20Evidence%20for%20the%20Impact%20of%20Battle%20on%20Soldiers%20and%20Non%E2%80%90Combatants%22%20feet&f=false)is something about the tibiae and feet.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 07, 2021, 12:55:09 PM
Some (but not all) of the Liston article is visible on Google Books, and here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_RHPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=%22Skeletal+Evidence+for+the+Impact+of+Battle+on+Soldiers+and+Non%E2%80%90Combatants%22+feet&source=bl&ots=DY6K97poW2&sig=ACfU3U3CbfwZU0XaUcw1pPhkOURMYgsIPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdi-K5nrjzAhVVP-wKHQ9OCM0Q6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Skeletal%20Evidence%20for%20the%20Impact%20of%20Battle%20on%20Soldiers%20and%20Non%E2%80%90Combatants%22%20feet&f=false)is something about the tibiae and feet.
Thanks Duncan. Unfortunately, the summary conclusions which presumably identify the sword blows as cavalry-inflicted are missing. There seems to be only one clear example of cutting off feet and burying them elsewhere, plus some hacking at bodies on the ground and a butt spike in the head of someone who was probably already dead. Interestingly, someone got his face smashed in by a shield rim - an infantry fight wound, I would think. There is also a downward cut to a femur above the knee, again likely infantry combat.
Add : This preview (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UZ3BDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) gives a slightly different selection of pages, including the conclusions about cavalry sword blows. It confirms we are dealing with only 10 skulls, chosen because of their obvious traumatic injuries.
Grim reading.
I wonder what protection helmets gave, and whether the presence or absence of helmets can be deduced from the bones.
Quote from: RichT on October 08, 2021, 10:21:19 AM
Grim reading.
Yes, an antidote to the rather bloodless violence we often see on screen. Ancient combat could be very brutal.
Quote
I wonder what protection helmets gave, and whether the presence or absence of helmets can be deduced from the bones.
A question often raised when talking about medieval mass graves. It seems unlikely that lots of people would take the field without head protection if they could help it. Yet plenty of serious head wounds in the archaeological record (and plenty more healed ones that have left bone damage).
I've been thinking about the disposal of the dead in this battle. The Macedonians are presumed to have burned then buried their dead on the field. A group of presumed Sacred band were buried in a neat mass grave with fine monument placed after. Athenian practice seems to have been to cremate their dead, then take the "cremains" back to Athens. I presume the allies may have cremated theirs and buried them in situ or taken them away. Being on home soil, did the Thebans bury the rest of theirs (Athenian cremation seems to have been a practical convenience rather than a standard at home).
It might be interesting to compare the pathology of Himera skeletons to the Chaironeia ones, see if they show similar wound types.
Quote from: RichT on October 08, 2021, 10:21:19 AMI wonder what protection helmets gave, and whether the presence or absence of helmets can be deduced from the bones.
John Ma, in the "Topographies of Commemoration" article linked to above, thinks that:
QuoteThe pattern of wounds implies a lack of protection of the legs, and perhaps only light protection for the head. Late fourth-century Attic grave stelai show hoplites wearing muscle cuirasses but no greaves; at the risk of a hyper-positivist reading of the visual evidence, I wonder if the Theban hoplites also eschewed greaves, and furthermore if they fought in the 'light' style favoured in the late fifth and early fourth century, under Peloponnesian influence: pilos helmet, no greaves or body armour. If so, they were at a disadvantage against the heavily armoured, sarissa-equipped Macedonian phalanx.
Certainly this is the style of protection seen in late 5th-century Boiotian art (the stelai of Mnason, Rhynchon, etc) but that needn't mean it was still the style used in the later 4th.
We have to be a bit careful with that bit about leg protection, now we've picked our way through the reports. We have only a couple of instances, some perhaps related to post-mortem "insulting" the dead, and a thigh injury, above the greave line.
The individual with face sliced off does suggest either no helmet or one without a brim or projecting nasal, which would fit a pilos helmet, I think.
Here's the wound distribution from Himera
n Skull n (%) Trunk n (%) Upper limb n (%) Lower limb n (%)
Mass burials 16 6 (37.5%) 8 (50.0%) 1 (6.25%) 1 (6.3%)
Of the 113 bodies in the mass graves, only 11 showed signs of trauma (the 16 above includes cases of multiple wounds). This helps contextualise the Chaironeia burials. Even with full modern excavation and detailed osteological study, the great majority of the dead showed no skeletally obvious trauma.
Himera report is here
https://www.academia.edu/41974780/The_mass_burials_from_the_western_necropolis_of_the_Greek_colony_of_Himera_Sicily_related_to_the_battles_of_480_and_409_BCE
The supplementary tables refered to in the text are here
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1002%2Foa.2858&file=oa2858-sup-0001-Supplementary_Data.docx
Yes I think John Ma did veer a bit into the hyper-positivist, given that Liston's report suggests the leg injuries are not combat injuries. It seems to me that if a cut through a helmet showed up in the bones then we could conclude that the victim wore a helmet; but if such evidence of helmet isn't present, we can't conclude the victim didn't wear one.
These head wounds relate to the question of dead and wounded. On the winning side, the wounded would presumably be collected and carried away, if not able to walk, for treatment (such as it was). The walking wounded among the losers would try to get off the field and would hopefully make it home, if not killed in the pursuit. But the non-walking wounded of the losing side would still be lying on the field. Hopefully in a war with heralds between enemies playing by the same rules, the loser's request to collect the bodies of their dead could also include a request to gather up the wounded - though to my knowledge no source refers to this, it is always just collection of dead.
So the head wounds could be a coup de grace delivered after combat - the butt spike injury seems most likely to be that, rather than a combat injury. It seems likely that the non-walking wounded of the losing side might routinely have been finished off by the victors as part of the process of gathering and stripping the bodies of the dead ("I'm not dead yet!"). As such, taking off the armour then if necessary delivering a lethal blow might be the normal practice and we couldn't tell from the bones which were combat injuries and which coups de grace (both would be perimortem, as I understand it), nor whether or not helmets or armour were worn. This wouldn't explain the leg injuries of course.
What did strike me when people were talking about armour was that care for the dead didn't stop people stripping them of everything worth having. It strikes me that is was a practice so accepted it wasn't even thought about
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 08, 2021, 12:25:12 PM
What did strike me when people were talking about armour was that care for the dead didn't stop people stripping them of everything worth having. It strikes me that is was a practice so accepted it wasn't even thought about
In the Athenian oligarchs v. democrats battle at Munychia, the oligarchs were defeated:
"And the victors took possession of their arms [hopla], but they did not strip off the tunic of any citizen. When this had been done and while they were giving back the bodies of the dead, many on either side mingled and talked with one another." (Xen. Hell. 2.4.19)
So it was presumably a mark of respect to leave the dead their clothes. I think of the border scenes in the Bayeux Tapestry in this context, the dead being stripped naked.