The Macedonian double whammy

[Mark G]

how about Ad Felidae attacks?

[RichT]

I should have added a smiley face. Or would that have made it worse?

I didn't intend an ad hominem argument - more an observation that the world views and concepts of reality of Justin and myself are so far apart that it is impossible for us to discuss any topic (well we haven't exhausted the possibilities of all topics, but all so we've far attempted) with any sort of meeting of minds whatever. I should have used a better simile, and would have if I had thought of one.

[Erpingham]

Thanks Richard.  Moderator hat removed.

For the curious, the moderator hat is a white painted Brodie helmet with a black letter M stencilled on the front.  Like the rest of the issued moderator uniform, it seems based on that of WWII Air Raid Wardens. 

[Justin Swanton]

[omitted stuff] A phalanx advances as a single entity, at one speed [more omitted stuff]

Er, well. OK. Sometimes these discussions have rather the feel of discussing quantum physics with a kitten.

I have to admit I'm a little bewildered. A pike phalanx was composed of trained professionals. Phalanxes were very strong on the front but vulnerable on the flanks and rear. In any case (in my kitty universe  ) it was a golden rule never to allow an infantry line to fragment. The only exception I can think of is a Spartan army, in which the allied hoplites might charge the enemy at a run whilst the Spartans advanced at a steady walk and there was nothing the Spartans could do about it. To defeat an infantry line you outfought it frontally or - easier - got on its flanks or punched a hole in it and rolled up both ends (hence the purpose of a wedge). Alexander's phalangites would have learned as lesson 101 of pike drill always to advance together in a continuous line. So the bit about Alex reining in his speed doesn't - to me at least - make any sense unless Alex is leading a cavalry unit in front of the phalanx.

But I can always learn something new I suppose...

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Richard.  Moderator hat removed.

For the curious, the moderator hat is a white painted Brodie helmet with a black letter M stencilled on the front.  Like the rest of the issued moderator uniform, it seems based on that of WWII Air Raid Wardens.

a la Dad's Army

[Justin Swanton]

Thanks Richard.  Moderator hat removed.

For the curious, the moderator hat is a white painted Brodie helmet with a black letter M stencilled on the front.  Like the rest of the issued moderator uniform, it seems based on that of WWII Air Raid Wardens.

a la Dad's Army

[Erpingham]

Thanks Richard.  Moderator hat removed.

For the curious, the moderator hat is a white painted Brodie helmet with a black letter M stencilled on the front.  Like the rest of the issued moderator uniform, it seems based on that of WWII Air Raid Wardens.

a la Dad's Army

Indeed - Hodges is my role model

[Erpingham]

For Justin's information, I believe US-based moderators (if we recruit any) would be issued with something similar to the US civil defence uniform, with white OCD pattern helmet, with a red M in the triangle of the badge. 

[RichT]

I have to admit I'm a little bewildered.

Are you bewildered at the idea that large linear formations of infantry will tend to become dislocated if they advance cross country over a considerable distance? I could quote passages from ancient sources that would make this point, but they are well known passages and I'm sure you must already be familiar with them (but you have perhaps already reckoned them as not applicable to this case, or to Macedonians, or to professionals, or to pike phalanxes). Or I could point you to modern accounts that make the same point (often quoting the same ancient sources), including my... gnn.. you know.... (but you perhaps have no interest in the views of any modern authors). Or I could point you to the experience of numerous periods of military history since antiquity, such as the 17th to 19th Centuries in Europe, where contemporary accounts also make the same observation (but you perhaps hold that ancient military history was unique and the experience of subsequent ages has no relevance).

So there we are. You have offered your tactical theory and we can all mull it over as we wish, and decide to agree or disagree based on its merits and our own knowledge and understanding. I see no prospect of persuading you that it is implausible, and no need to do so.

Now, "put that light out!".

[Justin Swanton]

I have to admit I'm a little bewildered.

Are you bewildered at the idea that large linear formations of infantry will tend to become dislocated if they advance cross country over a considerable distance? I could quote passages from ancient sources that would make this point, but they are well known passages and I'm sure you must already be familiar with them (but you have perhaps already reckoned them as not applicable to this case, or to Macedonians, or to professionals, or to pike phalanxes). Or I could point you to modern accounts that make the same point (often quoting the same ancient sources), including my... gnn.. you know.... (but you perhaps have no interest in the views of any modern authors). Or I could point you to the experience of numerous periods of military history since antiquity, such as the 17th to 19th Centuries in Europe, where contemporary accounts also make the same observation (but you perhaps hold that ancient military history was unique and the experience of subsequent ages has no relevance).

So there we are. You have offered your tactical theory and we can all mull it over as we wish, and decide to agree or disagree based on its merits and our own knowledge and understanding. I see no prospect of persuading you that it is implausible, and no need to do so.

Now, "put that light out!".

Try me on the passages. I'd be curious to see their contexts - do they match those of Alex's phalanx that advances a considerable distance in open order, then pauses to redress ranks and double to intermediate order, then a little later pauses again to redress ranks and double to close order before completing the final distance to the Greek mercenaries and Persian kardakes.

Actually it's an excellent thread topic: "Did infantry lines fragment when advancing against enemy?

[Erpingham]

Coming back to this topic in search of the one on fragmenting infantry lines, I realise it stopped dead.  Does this mean that the idea of the "Macedonian Double Whammy" was discarded?

[Justin Swanton]

We took off time to see if advancing infantry lines reached the enemy line piecemeal and if so to what extent. The hypothetical/possible/desirable consensus seems to be that less trained infantry like Mediaeval foot tended to fragment when advancing, especially if they advanced at speed, but it was known not to be a desirable state and efforts were made to counteract it. The presumption is that well-drilled infantry could avoid fragmenting during an advance and would certainly try to avoid fragmenting.

From this one can conclude that a Macedonian pike phalanx probably did not normally fragment when advancing against enemy, especially as it did not advance at a run like Mediaeval infantry. Thus Alexander would not need to take excessive care not to advance ahead of the rest of the phalanx if he was part of the phalanx, but he would if he was part of the Companions in front of the phalanx, since cavalry would tend to move faster than phalangites. Hence the likelihood that the Macedonian right wing at Issus consisted of cavalry in front of infantry and the double whammy becomes a plausible hypothesis with perhaps a not-very-scholarly name.

[RichT]

 

The presumption is that well-drilled infantry could avoid fragmenting during an advance and would certainly try to avoid fragmenting.

Yes, OK.

From this one can conclude that a Macedonian pike phalanx probably did not normally fragment when advancing against enemy,

No, one can conclude that they would certainly try to avoid fragmenting; that is, they would where possible take the necessary steps to avoid fragmenting (I'd prefer 'becoming disordered' to 'fragmenting' but too late now).

Now what might those steps have been, at Issus? You quoted the relevant passage yourself at the start of the thread:

"At first he still led them on in close array with measured step, although he had the forces of Darius already in full view, lest by a more hasty march any part of the phalanx should fluctuate from the line and get separated from the rest." Arrian, Anabasis 2.10.3

If you look a few sentences earlier, you find the same thing:

"His forces thus marshalled, Alexander led them on for some time with halts, so that their advance seemed quite a leisurely affair." Arr. Anab. 2.10.1

The phalanx advanced slowly and with halts (to redress the line, we can assume) so as to avoid becoming fragmented.

In the end though they did become fragmented because:

"the Macedonian centre did not set to with equal impetus, and finding the river banks precipitous in many places, were unable to maintain their front in unbroken line; and the Greeks attacked where they saw that the phalanx had been particularly torn apart." Arr. Anab. 2.10.5

No need to have cavalry in front of the phalanx (which is impossible anyway if we are to follow Arrian's account). No need to invoke the higher speed of cavalry as a reason for the measured advance of the phalanx. The measured advance of the phalanx was precisely how the phalanx avoided fragmenting (until it met the broken terrain of the river banks).

So yes the idea of the "Macedonian Double Whammy" was discarded, or rather it was never picked up by anyone in the first place.

[Justin Swanton]

From this one can conclude that a Macedonian pike phalanx probably did not normally fragment when advancing against enemy,

No, one can conclude that they would certainly try to avoid fragmenting; that is, they would where possible take the necessary steps to avoid fragmenting (I'd prefer 'becoming disordered' to 'fragmenting' but too late now).

Now what might those steps have been, at Issus? You quoted the relevant passage yourself at the start of the thread:

"At first he still led them on in close array with measured step, although he had the forces of Darius already in full view, lest by a more hasty march any part of the phalanx should fluctuate from the line and get separated from the rest." Arrian, Anabasis 2.10.3

If you look a few sentences earlier, you find the same thing:

"His forces thus marshalled, Alexander led them on for some time with halts, so that their advance seemed quite a leisurely affair." Arr. Anab. 2.10.1

The phalanx advanced slowly and with halts (to redress the line, we can assume) so as to avoid becoming fragmented.

In the end though they did become fragmented because:

"the Macedonian centre did not set to with equal impetus, and finding the river banks precipitous in many places, were unable to maintain their front in unbroken line; and the Greeks attacked where they saw that the phalanx had been particularly torn apart." Arr. Anab. 2.10.5

No need to have cavalry in front of the phalanx (which is impossible anyway if we are to follow Arrian's account). No need to invoke the higher speed of cavalry as a reason for the measured advance of the phalanx. The measured advance of the phalanx was precisely how the phalanx avoided fragmenting (until it met the broken terrain of the river banks).

Fine. One can posit that keeping the line of a phalanx unbroken during an advance required care, regardless of whether the wing was being led by a cavalry unit or not. But what is impossible about Alexander leading cavalry in front of the phalanx? Arrian places Alexander at the right wing but is not specific about where exactly he was positioned at the right. He is however clear that Alexander was on horseback just before the battle began and during the pursuit of Darius:

"But when the armies at length met in conflict, Alexander rode about in every direction to exhort his troops to show their valour" - Anabasis: 2.10.2

"But as soon as the left wing of Darius was terrified and routed by Alexander, and the Persian king perceived that this part of his army was severed from the rest, without any further delay he began to flee in his chariot along with the first, just as he was. He was conveyed safely in the chariot as long as he met with level ground in his flight; but when he lighted upon ravines and other rough ground, he left the chariot there, divesting himself of his shield and Median mantle. He even left his bow in the chariot; and mounting a horse continued his flight. The night, which came on soon after, alone rescued him from being captured by Alexander; for as long as there was daylight the latter kept up the pursuit at full speed."- Anabasis: 2.11.4-6

And don't forget Diodorus, who explicitly puts Alexander on a horse in front of the infantry, and keeps him on the horse before, during and after the battle:

"He set the cavalry along the front of the whole army, and ordered the infantry phalanx to remain in reserve behind it. He himself advanced at the head of the right wing to the encounter, having with him the best of the mounted troops." - Library: 33.2-3

"Alexander cast his glance in all directions in his anxiety to see Dareius, and as soon as he had identified him, he drove hard with his cavalry at the king himself"- Library: 33.5

"The Persian Oxathres was the brother of Dareius and a man highly praised for his  p213 fighting qualities; when he saw Alexander riding at Dareius and feared that he would not be checked, he was seized with the desire to share his brother's fate." - Ibid: 34.2

One can either reject Diodorus (and initiate a hypothesis about how Macedonian commanders hopped on and off horses during a battle in order to explain Arrian) or one can understand this passage in Arrian as referring to cavalry and infantry advancing together:

"But when they came within range of darts, Alexander himself and those around him being posted on the right wing, advanced first into the river with a run, in order to alarm the Persians by the rapidity of their onset, and by coming sooner to close conflict to receive little damage from the archers."

Unless I'm not following you and you are proposing that Alexander deployed with the Companions to the right of the phalanx? But that would still mean rejecting Diodorus.

Edit: looking at your earlier post I see you maintain just that (thread's been around for a bit and I have the memory of a goldfish).

[Erpingham]

especially as it did not advance at a run like Mediaeval infantry.

This is rather misleading.  Medieval infantry tended to advance "a pas" or "a petit pas" because they were trying to avoid disorder.  They may close the last part of an attack at the run - by that point, they won't disorder too much.  The defender would then usually close ranks to receive them.  Perhaps things were confused in the other discussion because we were discussing Verneuil, where, unusually, both sides advanced on each other.