Macedonian cavalry success against close order infantry

[Jim Webster]

  Plutarch was 46 -120AD, Arrian was 86 to 160AD, Curtis who's the one people have least faith in, was actually the second nearest in time as he is thought to have written between 41 and 79AD. The most contemporary was Diodorus Siculus who wrote between 60 and 30 BC. He was only three hundred years adrift, so was as contemporary as you or I am to the Jacobite rebellion of 1715.

Obviously they all had their sources, but these never survived and we struggle to subject them to proper analysis

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I suspect we do not know enough about the organisation of the close royal guard to say for certain but the front of a cavalry wedge is very exposed - there is a difference between heroic and suicidal.  Alexander may cross the point in later life (after he becomes convinced he is divine?) but as early as Chaeronea?  That is of course if there is anything to the fact that the Theban Sacred band were ridden down by a cavalry wedge at all.

Alex showed an interesting combination of cold calculation and apparent bravado throughout his life, with the bravado being more apparent when he was younger.  At the Granicus he is definitely playing a heroic role, striking down Mithridates and leading the subsequent attack on the cornered Greek mercenaries.  He would if anything have been even keener at Chaeronea, intent on showing what he was made of (in a non-anatomical way).

Paradoxically, the tip of the wedge is one of the safest places to be.  Missiles tend to fly past and land behind you, while melee opponents are distracted by the shiny-tipped long xystons flanking you on either side.  Unless you are up against opponents whose weapons outreach you, problems only arise if the wedge is forced to halt or slow to a speed where opponents can adjust in time to prepare a shrewd stroke against you and/or your mount; it is noteworthy that the only times Alexander or his mount get hit in battle are when the wedge has come to a halt: on the bank of the Granicus, in amid the mercenaries at the same battle and when duelling with Darius' bodyguard (or in at least one account Darius) at Issus.

If still in doubt, consider how many kings died at the tip of a wedge they were leading.  The number is not high.

Well at Chaeronea he wasn't a monarch, he was just some kid who needed nursemaiding lest he get himself killed

Sorry, but this seriously misrepresents what we know of both Alexander and Macedonian culture.  The 'kid' has already commanded one campaign - with complete success - two years earlier.  He would indeed have done what he was told - by his father - at Chaeronea, but it seems that his father told him to command the left of the army, not to hang back out of the action.

  Plutarch was 46 -120AD, Arrian was 86 to 160AD, Curtis who's the one people have least faith in, was actually the second nearest in time as he is thought to have written between 41 and 79AD. The most contemporary was Diodorus Siculus who wrote between 60 and 30 BC. He was only three hundred years adrift, so was as contemporary as you or I am to the Jacobite rebellion of 1715.

Obviously they all had their sources, but these never survived and we struggle to subject them to proper analysis.

Jim is right about this, although Arrian has an advantage over our other sources in that he had access to - and used - the contemporary accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, which he relies upon heavily - time-wise this is like our using Argyll's records when writing an account of the 1715 rising.  Diodorus and Curtius lacked access to Ptolemy's and Aristobulus' accounts and Plutarch might have had access to one or both but his emphasis on the life and character of his subjects results in a rather abbreviated treatment of their battles and campaigns.  Arrian is thus judged our best source and is usually taken as authoritative when discrepancies occur, though his account is not exhaustive and the other sources add various details - including our only accounts of Alexander's battle (Chaeronea) and campaign (against the Maedi) prior to becoming king.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Jim and I am trying not to state the obvious as you have summed up the sources to the debate nicely for me! I guess the angle I am coming from is that Alexander's role in the battle could have been beefed up at any point in the intervening 300-500 years.

We have a 22 year old King fighting and winning (some would say lucky in one or two instances) from 336BC onwards. Is it possible that Alxexander wished to have huge amounts of Kudos attached to the pivotal battle of Chaeronea in 334BC by having his involvement "enhanced"? 

Very slightly off topic but fascinating all the same.......

[Erpingham]

Paradoxically, the tip of the wedge is one of the safest places to be.  Missiles tend to fly past and land behind you, while melee opponents are distracted by the shiny-tipped long xystons flanking you on either side.  Unless you are up against opponents whose weapons outreach you, problems only arise if the wedge is forced to halt or slow to a speed where opponents can adjust in time to prepare a shrewd stroke against you and/or your mount; it is noteworthy that the only times Alexander or his mount get hit in battle are when the wedge has come to a halt: on the bank of the Granicus, in amid the mercenaries at the same battle and when duelling with Darius' bodyguard (or in at least one account Darius) at Issus.

If still in doubt, consider how many kings died at the tip of a wedge they were leading.  The number is not high.

We could look at the percentages.  How many kings do we know (as opposed to speculate)  led wedge attacks on formed infantry and how many times?  How many died or were wounded?  How does this compare to those who led other types of attack (e.g. infantry, linear cavalry formations)?  I presume we are just using Classical/Hellenistic period? 

I think part of the problem here (other than the lack of clarity of the evidence) is we carry two different images of cavalry wedges contacting infantry - yours is clean, precise, knife through butter; mine more of a controlled collision, cleaver into bone.  I admit mine is based on medieval warfare, where penetrating a solid infantry formation was easy compared with getting out of it intact, let alone cutting through.

[Jim Webster]

All we actually know is that Alexander was in titular command of part of the army. It is probable that in the pre-battle discussion the role of his force had been mapped out

What we have from Plutarch is that Alexander broke the Sacred band
He also says the Sacred band met the Macedonian infantry face to face.

So there is no evidence of cavalry at all, save that Dio Sic mentions Alexander and his Companions, who need not have been mounted.
So there is no evidence of a wedge.
I cannot see why anyone would have an 18 year old  stuck in the front rank of a pike phalanx as anything other than an indirect assassination attempt.
By definition the men he will be fighting will be veterans in the enemy front rank, their best equipped, strongest and most skillful men.

Three hundred years later 'historians' have got three centuries of Hellenistic baggage to cope with.
(I use the '' around historians because, for example, Plutarch was a teller of improving moral tales as much as he was a historian)

Jim

[Erpingham]

Came across this while googling : Philip II of Macedonia: Greater Than Alexander
Richard A. Gabriel http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philip-II-Macedonia-Greater-Alexander/dp/1597975192

On pp 78-82, he spells out Macedonian cavalry tactics, specifically the use of the wedge against hoplites.  His conclusions are almost identical to Patrick's except he has a shorter xyston and doesn't give it much significance - it's more about the horse.  If anything, he has a lower opinion of hoplites abilities.  He doesn't seem to have any more evidence than we have been discussing, though, except he claims that Arrian says Philip II adopted the Thracian cavalry wedge to combat infantry.  Perhaps someone could turn that up and see whether "infantry" means hoplites?

[Imperial Dave]

All we actually know is that Alexander was in titular command of part of the army. It is probable that in the pre-battle discussion the role of his force had been mapped out

I cannot see why anyone would have an 18 year old  stuck in the front rank of a pike phalanx as anything other than an indirect assassination attempt.
By definition the men he will be fighting will be veterans in the enemy front rank, their best equipped, strongest and most skillful men.

Three hundred years later 'historians' have got three centuries of Hellenistic baggage to cope with.
(I use the '' around historians because, for example, Plutarch was a teller of improving moral tales as much as he was a historian)

Jim

I'm with you Jim. It "feels" unlikely that a young untried Alexander would be in the front rank (be it infantry or cavalry). I would imagine that Philip gave instructions to keep Alexander in the mix but not right at the front. A blooding but not a death sentence for his progeny and enough burly guardsmen to keep him out of serious trouble

[Jim Webster]

All we actually know is that Alexander was in titular command of part of the army. It is probable that in the pre-battle discussion the role of his force had been mapped out

I cannot see why anyone would have an 18 year old  stuck in the front rank of a pike phalanx as anything other than an indirect assassination attempt.
By definition the men he will be fighting will be veterans in the enemy front rank, their best equipped, strongest and most skillful men.

Three hundred years later 'historians' have got three centuries of Hellenistic baggage to cope with.
(I use the '' around historians because, for example, Plutarch was a teller of improving moral tales as much as he was a historian)

Jim

I'm with you Jim. It "feels" unlikely that a young untried Alexander would be in the front rank (be it infantry or cavalry). I would imagine that Philip gave instructions to keep Alexander in the mix but not right at the front. A blooding but not a death sentence for his progeny and enough burly guardsmen to keep him out of serious trouble

If he was like the other 18 year olds I've met, listening to his story afterwards, you'd have thought he'd won it single handed anyway, showing a lot of sad old men the way it should be done :-)

Jim

[aligern]

How many wounds did Philip have? Looking at Alexander's behaviour in later life it is far more likely that his father told him to lead from the front and take the risks . Yes, he would have good men around him, but he would not kept away fro risk. Philip would know that it took a hero to lead Macedonians and that meant being where the action was.


I wonder if people impose too modern a view. They would have Alex, like Prince Harry, not allowed in too risky a spot. I bet Harry would have preferred to be out where the shooting was hot.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

Maybe Alexander's actions later in life were because he was "restrained" on the instruction of Philip (hypothetically) at Chaeronea so as to prove himself to those around him. Could the relationship between Philip and Alexander, strained as they were because of his mother, be a family interplay on who knows best?

One thing that doesnt change in history is the friction between sons and fathers as the former "comes of age" and the latter tries to keep the status quo

[Erpingham]

I wonder if people impose too modern a view. They would have Alex, like Prince Harry, not allowed in too risky a spot. I bet Harry would have preferred to be out where the shooting was hot.
Roy

I think you are going too modern here.  In the Middle Ages, when monarchs really did see frontline action, there was some debate as to whether a monarch had a duty to protect himself for the common good or whether he should, as a true knight, lead from the front.  A similar debate could surely be considered for the advisors of a Macedonian king?  We can speculate what being "at the front" meant - certainly exposing himself to danger, certainly personally involved in killing.  Probably with his personal guards close about him (isn't part of the tragedy of Cleitus that he had saved Alex's life in a melee?).  Charging into a formed phalanx eight feet ahead of everyone else? Unproven.

[Jim Webster]

Looking at Philip's wounds, the eye was damaged at a seige when he was checking the artillery, there is an article http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8654972 The wounds of Philip which is available to everyone with an account

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

He also says the Sacred band met the Macedonian infantry face to face.

Actually he says no such thing, in fact: he says (in his Life of Pelopidas, 18) that the Sacred Band fell to Macedonian sarissas.

keisthai tous triakosious, enantious apēntēkotas tais sarisais hapantas en tois hoplois kai met' allēlōn anamemigmenous

(the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the sarissas, with their armour, and mingled one with another)

Macedonian infantry is not mentioned.  The Perseus translator, however, took it upon himself to add 'of the phalanx' after 'sarissas', presumably to order matters in his own mind.

Maybe Alexander's actions later in life were because he was "restrained" on the instruction of Philip (hypothetically) at Chaeronea so as to prove himself to those around him. Could the relationship between Philip and Alexander, strained as they were because of his mother, be a family interplay on who knows best?

It does not seem to have been strained at the time of Chaeronea, nor does Alexander have a history of being 'restrained' by his father.  One may remember that at the age of ten he was allowed to approach and interact with a dangerous and untameable horse.  We should beware of assuming that Macedonian heirs were 'cosseted' - everything we have indicates they were encouraged to behave like men and take risks like men.

At Ipsus, Antigonus had his son and heir on the field.  Where was this son and heir?  At the head of the cavalry.

In the Middle Ages, when monarchs really did see frontline action, there was some debate as to whether a monarch had a duty to protect himself for the common good or whether he should, as a true knight, lead from the front.  A similar debate could surely be considered for the advisors of a Macedonian king?

If so, none of our sources mention it, which would be a most surprising omission if it were in fact an omission.  A Macedonian king (and his Hellenistic successors) invariably led from the front for the common good - with one exception.  Perseus at Pydna (168 BC) is believed to have ducked out of leading (just once) on the pretext that he had to sacrifice at a temple or that he had been kicked by a horse - and he was forever after execrated as a coward.

[Justin Swanton]

He also says the Sacred band met the Macedonian infantry face to face.

Actually he says no such thing, in fact: he says (in his Life of Pelopidas, 18) that the Sacred Band fell to Macedonian sarissas.

keisthai tous triakosious, enantious apēntēkotas tais sarisais hapantas en tois hoplois kai met' allēlōn anamemigmenous

(the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the sarissas, with their armour, and mingled one with another)

Macedonian infantry is not mentioned.  The Perseus translator, however, took it upon himself to add 'of the phalanx' after 'sarissas', presumably to order matters in his own mind.

Which is why I am a spectator in this discussion. My experience is that one cannot trust translations since even the good translators try to second-guess the author's mind in more obscure passages.

A translator needs three things: a good grasp of the original language, a good grasp of English, and a first-rate academic understanding of the historical context (which does not necessarily mean an erudite knowledge of fashionable academic theories)  .

[Jim Webster]

I note that whilst Macedonian infantry are not mentioned, neither are the cavalry, and given we have no evidence whatsoever of Macedonian cavalry charging frontally successfully into Greek Hoplites (Surely the Lamian war would have turned up one example if it was so obviously successful) I'm happy to accept it was just an infantry battle.

With Antigonus you are in the post Alexander world. Not only that but Demetrius was 35 at the time of the battle of Ipsus, so can hardly be evidence of the utility of ephebes in combat

As for Perseus, again, he was the king, Alexander was a boy obeying orders. Disobeying orders was not encouraged

Jim