The Macedonian double whammy

[Justin Swanton]

I imagine one could just say it was erroneous, as Rich affirms Diodorus was erroneous. Any textual source that doesn't fit a preconceived theory is erroneous. Easy way of doing history I suppose...

All interpretation of multiple sources involves a process of reconciliation and, I suppose, we all have methods we deploy.  Richard, it seems to me, used a standard method - if you have six sources and five say one thing and the unique source is clearly not your best source, you may well assume errors in it.

And perhaps the old adage about people in greenhouses not throwing stones applies.  Your personal methodology does make itself vulnerable to cherry-picking of bits of sources, after all.

Feel free to give an example of my cherry-picking bits of sources and calling other sources that contradict my cherry-picking erroneous. One example will do.

And now I really have to go. See y'all later!

[Prufrock]

I'll come back to this - a little tied up at present. For now I'd be interested in your take on Arrian, Anabasis: 3.14:

"he himself led those with him for a short time further to the right, but when the cavalry who had been sent to help against the Persians who were encircling the right wing had broken their frontline to some extent, he turned through the gap and made a wedge formation with the companion cavalry and the part of the main phalanx stationed there, and then led them at a run with a full battle cry straight at Darius himself."

καὶ ὥσπερ ἔμβολον ποιήσας τῆς τε ἵππου τῆς ἑταιρικῆς καὶ τῆς φάλαγγος τῆς ταύτῃ τεταγμένης

Just prior to this quote it states (in my translation) that Alexander was continuing to advance in column. When the gap opens he goes into it 'with his Companions and all the heavy infantry in this sector of the line, drove in his wedge and raising the battle-cry pressed forward at the double straight for the point where Darius stood.'

The cavalry and infantry are coordinating. Are they mixed into a two-waved wedge formation, or are both types of troops (possibly in column when the gap presented itself) going into the gap at the same time in a rush to exploit the hole? 

The next passage continues talking about Alexander and the cavalry going in and engaging infierce hand-to-hand combat. Once the phalanx adds its weight, the Persians break.

Is this close coordination between cavalry and infantry a response to the situation presenting itself, with units fighting side by side? Or was it, as Justin seems to be suggesting, a 'doubly-whammy' wedge led by cavalry and expanded with infantry?

I lean towards the former, but am interested to hear Justin's arguments in favour of the latter.

[Erpingham]

I imagine one could just say it was erroneous, as Rich affirms Diodorus was erroneous. Any textual source that doesn't fit a preconceived theory is erroneous. Easy way of doing history I suppose...

All interpretation of multiple sources involves a process of reconciliation and, I suppose, we all have methods we deploy.  Richard, it seems to me, used a standard method - if you have six sources and five say one thing and the unique source is clearly not your best source, you may well assume errors in it.

And perhaps the old adage about people in greenhouses not throwing stones applies.  Your personal methodology does make itself vulnerable to cherry-picking of bits of sources, after all.

Feel free to give an example of my cherry-picking bits of sources and calling other sources that contradict my cherry-picking erroneous. One example will do.

OK

Placing the cavalry in front of the infantry as Diodorus describes also fits with Arrian's description of the Macedonian phalanx's right wing at Gaugamela: "Alexander wheeled round towards the gap, and forming a wedge as it were of the Companion cavalry and of the part of the phalanx which was posted here, he led them with a quick charge and loud battle-cry straight towards Darius himself."

Here you have taken a passage from Diodorus (which doesn't fit the other sources for Issus) and matched it with another isolated bit from Gaugamela by Arrian to support your double-whammy idea.  You ignore other sources and conflate single sentences which describe different stages of different battles as the basis for a theory, which you then apply universally.

[RichT]

I would add that putting an emoticon after a statement doesn't stop that statement being ignorant, disrespectful and rude. Justin, considering you don't have the first clue how to 'do history', you refuse to engage with the extensive literature on these topics, you refuse to understand the basic principles of source criticism, you refuse (above all) to consider the possibility that your being, as you admit, always in a minority of one, is not because the world is always wrong but because you are, I find your constant jibes at people whose understanding of history differs from your own to be tedious at best. ( )

Rant over. Anthony, moderate my post as you think best, but this is becoming annoying.

Now, back to ancient history.

Aaron (on the two squadrons of Companions at Issus):

They are not the same squadrons, according to the notes in my Penguin edition, ed. Betty Radice, trans. de Selincourt, intro. and notes, JR Hamilton.

Yes, the note does say that - I'm not clear what the basis is for the certainty that these weren't the Companions. So far as the texts (Arrian, QC) go, they might have been. Personally I find it a bit unlikely Companions would have been used for such a task and the mercenary cavalry might be more likely, but if these aren't Companions, it's not clear why the Companions were moved or what they did. Another unknown.

Justin:

For now I'd be interested in your take on Arrian, Anabasis: 3.14:

"he himself led those with him for a short time further to the right, but when the cavalry who had been sent to help against the Persians who were encircling the right wing had broken their frontline to some extent, he turned through the gap and made a wedge formation with the companion cavalry and the part of the main phalanx stationed there, and then led them at a run with a full battle cry straight at Darius himself."

Chinnock's translation which Justin used previously for Issus says:
"... Alexander wheeled round towards the gap, and forming a wedge as it were of the Companion cavalry and of the part of the phalanx which was posted here, he led them with a quick charge and loud battle-cry straight towards Darius himself."

In one respect Chinnock's translation is better - it includes ὥσπερ, hosper, 'as it were', "and making as it were a wedge of the companion cavalry and the phalanx drawn up nearby". So this isn't a single massive wedge formed of all the Companions and part of the phalanx, it is a formation of Companions and phalanx that is 'like a wedge'. Then, we should consider the meaning of 'wedge' (embolon) itself. As is well known (to anyone who makes the effort to become familiar with the subject before opining on it), 'embolon' does not straightforwardly mean 'wedge'. Xenophon uses 'embolon' to describe the Theban formation at Leuctra, but it is widely agreed that this means not that the Theban infantry formed into a wedge; 'embolon' can mean wedge, but it also means 'ram' (of a trireme for example) and Xenophon's meaning in this case is probably that the Thebans formed a ram-like formation (a column, in practice) to attack the Spartan line. It is similar to Latin usage of 'cuneus' which can mean 'wedge' but can also mean various other bodies of various or undefined shape. So Arrian's statement is not good evidence that the Companions and part of the phalanx formed a single, massive wedge. They might have done of course, but everyone who has studied this question (and that's a lot of people) have found this unlikely and more likely that Arrian is using the idea of a wedge to describe the grand tactical form of the attack, rather than to describe the small unit formations adopted. The Companions themselves would no doubt have been in wedges of individual squadrons. To complicate matters there's the possible role of the Hypaspists as hamippoi charging with, behind or alongside the Companions, but things are complicated enough already.

[Prufrock]

In one respect Chinnock's translation is better - it includes ὥσπερ, hosper, 'as it were', "and making as it were a wedge of the companion cavalry and the phalanx drawn up nearby". So this isn't a single massive wedge formed of all the Companions and part of the phalanx, it is a formation of Companions and phalanx that is 'like a wedge'.

That's the sense I take from it as well (but with the important difference of not being able to read the Greek!): that it's a kind of wedge; that it acts like a wedge acts, but without being a 'wedge formation' itself (but as I say, I don't read Greek, so hesitate to be too dogmatic).

In Justin's defence, I think he has to a certain extent taken on the late Patrick Waterson's role as provoker of discussions. As I understand it, Patrick was asked to do this by Roy in the early days of the forum, in order to generate conversation, provide material for lively debate, test established wisdom, and generally keep things interesting (please correct me if I've misremembered, Roy!).

Perhaps there is less appetite for these kinds of discussions now. Perhaps we older forum hands all know each other a little too well! At any rate, I'm getting outside my remit, and am probably best just to stick to Gaugamela!

[RichT]

That may be, and I'm all for discussions and for different points of view, although having the same discussions over and over is perhaps wearing thin, but then there's only so much ancient history to discuss.

But if Justin is doing this deliberately then he is doing it extremely badly; just pissing off members should not be anyone's role. It seems to me Anthony does an excellent job of keeping discussions moving and varied, without insulting anybody. Anyway yes, let's all just stick to ancient history if we can.

[Mark G]

There is a difference between initiating / provoking a discussion, and demanding unique interpretations are accepted as established fact.

The length of the thread and the number of times a variation on the same "new" idea keeps returning from the same instigator is a good indication.

For my part, I think the central difficulty with Justin's theories is the same as it was with Patrick's. 
Both start from a position that any "old" book must be assumed to be literally true unless demonstrably and unquestionably disproven by an equally "old" book, whilst all modern (19th c onward) books are inherently wrong, especially if they have been peer reviewed ( since academia and science cannot be trusted)

I can only assume there is one particular very old book they are desperate to place above all criticism.  It's nonsensical otherwise, even as an article of faith.

[Prufrock]

Gentlemen, I regret my tangent. Patrick and Justin have made in their own ways unique and valuable contributions to this hobby and to the SoA. Let's just stick to Gaugamela.

[Erpingham]

I'm not going to be particularly moderatorial.  Justin is well aware of the stirring he is doing and should be prepared for a certain amount of comeback. Provided it is done in a civil fashion and focuses on techniques and actual history, I am confident that all will be well.

On Justin taking on the role of provocateur, indeed he is.  Like Holly and Duncan keep up a steady stream of news items to give us something to talk about.  And, as Richard has spotted, I too deliberately try to make sure we fully explore topics rather than let them drop.  I don't think we are doing this under presidential remit, unlike Patrick was (but then, I reckon he would have done it anyway  ).

For what its worth, I think Justin is honest in his engagement - these are genuine theories from someone who likes to explore alternatives.  Like others, though, I do wish he's take a broader base of evidence into consideration and a more nuanced approach to sources while developing them.

[Justin Swanton]

I've left this thread alone for a while as it required more than an off-the-cuff response and I had other preoccupations.

Let me start with the purpose of the thread (and other threads that I create). Every now and again an idea crops up that seems might be worth exploring further. I don't have the erudition of several other posters on this forum on the topics in question so posting the idea here and seeing what evidence can be brought forward for or against it seems a good course of action. With the 5th century British chronology thread it did indeed prove useful as I had to adjust my original timetable to accommodate the fact that Auxiliaris was prefect of Gaul between 435-7 and Germanus visited him then, and also to accommodate the Gallic Chronicle that recorded a Saxon dominion over Britain in 441. It was an interesting thread - a learning curve that involved seeing several hypotheses set up and disproved, or perhaps confirmed, as additional evidence was brought forward.

In the case of this thread I only recently came up with the idea of a Macedonian double attack with cavalry in front of infantry as applicable to Chaeronea (I had for some time thought it applied to Issus and Gaugamela) - and felt the forum is the perfect place to see if it holds water. What source evidence can be brought forward to either refute or confirm it? My first post laid out the intention of the thread.

This is not "stirring" or "taking on the role of provocateur." I chose the double whammy hypothesis precisely because it is not something about which there is an academic consensus - to the best of my knowledge no academic has ever considered it, either to support or refute it. If I wanted to be a "provocateur" I could have started a thread on the enormous size of earlier Carthaginian armies, following on from the controversy of Achaemenid armies' sizes. Ditto for the Arthur thread. It was only in the course of that discussion that I became aware that contemporary academic consensus considers Arthur a legend, an individual who may or may not have existed but about whom we can know strictly nothing - it was a discovery to learn that academic agnosticism went that far.

Now a word about methodology.

Everyone else who has ever examined Issus and Gaugamela has the Companions to the right of the phalanx, not in front of it.

When trying to establish a new interpretation it's more effective to acknowledge the existing consensus than to ignore it.

Justin, considering you don't have the first clue how to 'do history', you refuse to engage with the extensive literature on these topics, you refuse to understand the basic principles of source criticism, you refuse (above all) to consider the possibility that your being, as you admit, always in a minority of one, is not because the world is always wrong but because you are, I find your constant jibes at people whose understanding of history differs from your own to be tedious at best.

but you perhaps have no interest in the views of any modern authors

Rich's point is clear: one has to read the contemporary authors (and by implication agree with them when they agree with each other) or forget about doing history in any form - bearing in mind this is a wargaming forum, not a doctorate examination room. I've already given my take on the value of academic study. Let me repeat it here:

Let's start with academic study. For the record I consider it invaluable. Let me repeat that: I consider academic study invaluable. Academics are in a position to assemble data that people like myself are not. You pointed out earlier the importance of having a good knowledge of the various versions of MSS if you want start from a position of trusting the sources Academics are specialists who spend years collating every relevant piece of information on a specific topic and there is simply nothing that can replace that.

My problem is the interpretation of the data. I've not read as much contemporary literature as Rich, but I've read quite a bit, and my experience is that many academics are strong on erudition but weak on analysis. There is an attempt to make history work like the empirical sciences, and it fails. The scientific method requires that one constantly increase the amount of raw data by observation, then analyse the data by repeated experimentation until one reaches conclusions that are certain. But you can't do this with history. The data - the written record - is fixed. Archaeology adds a bit, but not much, and not enough to substantially alter or augment the written sources. Academics compensate for this by increasing the amount of speculation. But speculation isn't data as the theories might be plausible but cannot be certain since there isn't the additional evidence to make them so. And you can't perform experiments on written records. You can only evaluate the reliability of the writers, which is a human thing: you don't attach numbers to it. You use common sense and a good knowledge of human nature. So IMHO academic consensus on, for example, the historicity of Arthur is reached more by tacit agreement on speculation than by any new evidence. Since the raw data for a topic like Issus is limited and easily accessible to an ordinary Joe and not just academics (though thanks to academics for bringing together every relevant document), that means the ordinary Joe can come to his own conclusions about it without being obliged to trust the academics. He couldn't do that for nuclear physics, astronomy or higher mathematics. There he has to trust the experts.

I therefore don't fall into overawed silence when the words "academic consensus" are uttered, at least not for history. I want to know what exactly the academics say and the proofs/arguments for what they say. I warmly encourage Rich to quote academics - with their reasoning - next time he cites academic consensus.

Let me take a closer look at the sources on the cavalry deployment at Issus in a later post.

[RichT]

Oh really, do we have to do this? OK, one last try. I will express myself freely since I think the situation requires it, but this is not by way of a personal attack on anyone. This is just a forum for a small group of like minded (in some respects) people to talk about wargames and related stuff, and we shouldn't be fighting each other. Everything is meant in a spirit of good will, though some thoughts may be expressed with a certain lack of tact.

Justin - you say that the purpose of these sorts of threads is just for you to test out new ideas and for it to be a learning curve for you. That is not how they come over. They come over as you coming up with a theory, which is often based on ignorance and an incomplete or inadequate understanding of the evidence, and then defending that theory against all comers, while at the same time denigrating the work and the opinions of anyone who does not agree with you. This may not be your intention; but it is the result. The reason you are called a contrarian and a provocateur is not because we are all exceptionally ill tempered or dismissive of non-mainstream views, it is because this is how you come over in your posts. Your posts are, after all, all we have to go on.

Given that there is this serious mismatch between your intentions and how you are perceived, I think you need to look very closely at how you express yourself in these sorts of discussions. You asked the question in the first post to this thread "Is this reconstruction plausible?", to which the overwhelming response has been "No", for the reasons given - and giving reasons, collecting the evidence for and against your theories, is time consuming. Fortunately (or unfortunately) a lot of us have time on our hands right now, but offering a critique of your theories is really doing you a favour. It is frustrating when, having gathered evidence and arguments, we find that, not only do you show no sign of being interested in learning anything and instead doggedly defend your theory, you also sneeringly dismiss (albeit with a friendly emoticon) the views of all those who disagree with you. You come over as if you are either a contrarian and a provocateur who delights in conflict and deliberately stirs up arguments for their own sake (a troll, in other words); or a delusional crank who is oblivious of his own inadequacies (see Dunning-Kruger). If neither of these characterisations is fair then I do not think we are entirely to blame - this is the way you sometimes come across in these threads (not every time).

I don't want to say too much about historical method, so just a few points.

Rich's point is clear: one has to read the contemporary authors (and by implication agree with them when they agree with each other) or forget about doing history in any form

What do you mean 'contemporary'? If you mean the ancient authors then broadly yes, you are right. If you mean modern authors, then no, that is a gross mischaracterisation of my views and of the way that history is done. Incidentally, I assume you have no qualifications in history? You have had no formal historical education, and neither learned nor been taught anything about historical method? While history, it is true, is not quite like nuclear physics and it is certainly easier for anyone to just 'have a go' at writing history than at building a nuclear reactor, it is also not the case that no skills are required at all. The reason people spend years studying history is not just so they can be students for the longest possible time (though that is a factor), and the time isn't spent just learning lists of dates. Doing history is a craft, and one with skills and techniques that can be learned and acquired and honed and perfected. The idea that this process can be sidestepped by a short cut ('just reading the sources') is simply wrong.

So - what is the point of being familiar with the work of modern historians? Two things - one is as you recognise, they have done a lot of the hard graft and collected the evidence. We can benefit from that by using their findings to fill in gaps in our own knowledge. Take the case of the 'wedge' at Gaugamela. You set a lot of store by the use of the word 'embolon', but you are not familiar with the ways in which this word was used in antiquity. Others are, have studied the question, and have made their findings available, in writing. Reading their work can inform how we (including you!) understand the 'wedge' at Gaugamela.  Of course you don't have to read their work, you can trawl the ancient literature yourself, but it's a whole lot easier if you do ('standing on the shoulders of giants' and all that).

The other reason others' work is valuable is more fundamental. Your view is that, for antiquity at least, all you need to know is included in 'the sources' (which for you mostly means online texts and translations), supplemented by a few bits and bobs from archaeology. 'The sources' to you are a monolithic, indivisible, infallible set of texts, not infallible in that they can never be wrong - I know you acknowledge that ancient authors could sometimes be mistaken, but as you say, "The data - the written record - is fixed." This is your fundamental mistake. The words in the written record are fixed (assuming we can sort out the manuscript traditions, which is not always the case) but their meaning, their interpretation, what we should understand it is that they are saying, is not. This can change as interpretations change, and interpretations change not just when new facts become available, but when new arguments are proffered that convince us that the new interpretations are an improvement on the old. When sufficient people are convinced by a new argument or a new interpretation, this is what constitutes an academic consensus. This does not guarantee that the new interpretation is 'right', and it does not guarantee it is better; it just tells us that more informed people who have studied the question are convinced than are not, and as many of these people will be better informed, more intelligent and better at history than we are, then their collective opinion should carry some weight. (Though they could still be wrong!)

I would also add that if you think my view is that one should always agree with what other modern historians say, then you have obviously never read anything I have written.

OK I don't want to discuss historical method with you any more, Justin, so I'm going to ask you to drop this topic. If you want to discuss, strictly factually, cavalry deployment at Issus then that's fine and I might be able to contribute something (though, frankly, I do have better things to do).

[Erpingham]

Thank you Justin and Richard for laying out methodological viewpoints.  While i think it was important for you to lay out your approaches, as Richard says, perhaps time, for the sake of other members, to get back to discussing the battles of Alexander. 

Moderator hat off.

From an ordinary non-classicist, can I suggest that other members don't turn off because they don't have the in-depth knowledge of Richard and Justin.  I always find it valuable in an area I don't know to ask questions of the more learned and sometimes force them to spell out and explain their assumptions.  This gets you into the debate and you end up learning more.  It can also lead the to pauses in the melee, for those who follow a non-continuous combat model   .

Back to the constructive controversy .......

[Justin Swanton]

And now let's look at the cavalry lineup at Issus. I'll use the translations Rich kindly posted in the Battles section, occasionally checking the Greek and Latin.

Diodorus affirms that the cavalry - all of it - formed up in front of the infantry:

He set the cavalry along the front of the whole army, and ordered the infantry phalanx to remain in reserve behind it. (2) He himself advanced at the head of the right wing to the encounter, having with him the best of the mounted troops. The Thessalian horse was on the left, and this was outstanding in bravery and skill.

Rich claims Diodorus is wrong and that the other sources placed the cavalry on the wings:

Just this one sentence ("He set the cavalry along the front of the whole army, and ordered the infantry phalanx to remain in reserve behind it") suggests the cavalry were in front and the infantry behind. So it's as certain as anything can be in ancient history that this sentence is an error.

Arrian, Callisthenes and Curtius all have the Macedonian infantry phalanx in the centre and the cavalry on the wings.

But what exactly do the other sources say?

Curtius
Alexander had stationed the phalanx, the strongest part of any Macedonian army, in the van. Nicanor, son of Parmenion, guarded the right wing; next to him stood Coenus, Perdiccas, Meleager, Ptolemaeus, and Amyntas, each in command of his own troops. On the left wing, which extended to the sea, were Craterus and Parmenion, but Craterus was ordered to obey Parmenion. The cavalry were stationed on both wings; the right was held by Macedonians, joined with Thessalians, the left by the Peloponnesians.  Before this battleline he had stationed a band of slingers mingled with bowmen. Thracians also and the Cretans were in the van; these too were in light armour. But to those who, sent ahead by Darius , had taken their place on the ridge of the mountain he opposed the Agriani lately brought from Thrace. Moreover, he had directed Parmenion to extend his line as far as possible towards the sea, in order that his line of battle might be farther away from the mountains on which the barbarians were posted. But they, having dared neither to oppose the Macedonians as they came up nor to surround them after they had gone past, had fled, especially alarmed by the sight of the slingers; and that action had made safe the flank of Alexander's army, which he had feared might be assailed from above. The Macedonian army advanced in thirty-two ranks; for the narrow place did not allow the line to be extended more widely. Then the folds of the mountains began to widen and open a greater space, so that not only could the infantry take their usual order, but the cavalry could [also] cover their flanks.

Notice that the left wing of the phalanx extends to the sea (Rufus is talking about the phalanx at this point and doesn't yet mention the cavalry). Notice also that the cavalry could cover the flanks of the infantry only after the ground was wide enough for the infantry to take up their usual order. The English translation accurately reproduces the sense of the Latin:

Paulatim deinde laxare semet sinus montium et maius spatium aperire coeperant, ita ut non pedes solum pluribus in ordinem incedere, sed etiam lateribus circumfundi posset equitatus.

So if the cavalry couldn't cover the flanks of the infantry before the ground widened out, then where were they? They were "stationed on both wings" so weren't in column behind the phalanx. Only answer is that they were deployed in line before the phalanx (that was "in the van" in the sense of before the rest of the infantry, notably the Greek mercenaries). They may have extended beyond the flanks of the phalanx and were probably in two parts, one before the left wing of the phalanx, one before the right wing. The point is that they weren't alongside the phalanx.

Arrian
This is replicated by Arrian:

His cavalry so far had been ranged behind the infantry, but when they moved forward into open ground, he at once drew up his army in battle order; on the right wing towards the mountain ridge he placed first of the infantry the agema and hypaspists under Nicanor son of Parmenio, next to them Coenus' battalion, and then that of Perdiccas. From right to left these regiments stretched to the centre of the hoplites. (4) On the left, Amyntas' battalion came first, then Ptolemaeus', and next Meleager's. Craterus had been put in command of the infantry on the left and Parmenio of the entire left wing, with orders not to edge away from the sea, for fear the barbarians should surround them, since with their great numbers they were likely to overlap them on all sides.
..........................
Alexander however finding the ground opening outwards a little as he went forward, brought into line his cavalry, the so-called Companions, the Thessalians, and the Macedonians, whom he posted with himself on the right wing while the Peloponnesians and other allies were sent to Parmenio on the left.

Notice that the phalanx deploys with its left flank anchored on the sea - "not to edge away from the sea" refers to the phalanx, not the cavalry, as it is the phalanx Arrian is talking about at this point.

It is when the ground opens up "a little" that Alexander deploys the cavalry "in line". Doing some calculations I estimate that the Companions, Thessalians, Greeks, Paeonians, and Thracians alone would have taken up a frontage of between 900 - 1200 yards. I can give my reasoning for that if anyone wishes. Include the other light cavalry and the cavalry line would have been wider than the phalanx, so the ground would have had to more than double in width to permit the cavalry to move to the flanks of the infantry. Certainly more than "a little".

Arrian mentions a little later that the left flank cavalry were in fact in front of the infantry:

On the left wing of the infantry the Cretan archers and the Thracians under Sitalces had been posted in front [προετάχθησαν], with the cavalry of the left wing further in advance [πρό = "before" "in front of"].

So the left wing cavalry were in front of the Cretans and Thracians who themselves were in front of the left wing of the phalanx. The cavalry are not positioned on the flank of the phalanx.

Polybius
But, other things apart, Alexander did not even, according to Callisthenes, send his cavalry on in front when advancing in line over flat ground, but apparently placed them alongside the infantry.

The "apparently" isn't in the Greek: ὁ δὲ χωρὶς τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲ τοὺς ἱππεῖς προέθετο, μετωπηδὸν ἄγων τὴν δύναμιν ἐν τόποις ἐπιπέδοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἴσου ποιεῖ τοῖς πεζοῖς. So Polybius definitely affirms that Callisthenes put the cavalry alongside the infantry. However Polybius misunderstands so much else about Callisthenes that it is not unlikely he misunderstands him here. If Callisthenes said something along the lines of "the cavalry deployed in line at the wings of the infantry" that could easily be understood as deploying alongside the infantry rather than in two lines in front of them.

But notice exactly what Polybius is saying. For him Callisthenes is wrong in affirming the cavalry deployed on the wings when in fact the cavalry deployed in front of the phalanx. Polybius in rejecting Callisthenes (as he understands him) hence confirms Diodorus.



Putting it all together, I deduce this:

1. The phalanx emerges from the narrow space south of Issus and deploys into line with the left flank anchored on the sea. The cavalry remains behind it in column.

2. As the ground widens the cavalry deploys into line in front of the phalanx. It seems this line is not continuous but is in two halves in front of the wings of the phalanx. The Companions are originally towards the centre of the infantry frontage.

3. Two ilai of Companions redeploy from the central position to the right beyond the phalanx.

4. As the ground widens further, the two cavalry lines gradually move right and left, getting clear of more and more of the frontage of the phalanx. Nowhere however is it affirmed that all the cavalry moved clear of the phalanx.

This reconstruction harmonises the sources and doesn't oblige me to reject or shoehorn any part of them.

[Justin Swanton]

There isn't much I need to say about Richard's last post. He affirms:

I will express myself freely since I think the situation requires it, but this is not by way of a personal attack on anyone. This is just a forum for a small group of like minded (in some respects) people to talk about wargames and related stuff, and we shouldn't be fighting each other. Everything is meant in a spirit of good will, though some thoughts may be expressed with a certain lack of tact.

and then goes on to say:

You come over as if you are either a contrarian and a provocateur who delights in conflict and deliberately stirs up arguments for their own sake (a troll, in other words); or a delusional crank who is oblivious of his own inadequacies (see Dunning-Kruger). If neither of these characterisations is fair then I do not think we are entirely to blame - this is the way you sometimes come across in these threads (not every time).

This is as crass as it is unjust. I will treat this post and future posts like it the same way I treat a YouTube troll - by ignoring them.

[aligern]

I rather presume that the battlefield of Issus has been measured?  ( Its probably in Phil Sabin's book) Given tgat we have believable formations for the different types of cavalry and infantry and can thus construct the Macedonian battle line. Particularly so because the line is formed along tge river which is presumably relatively fixed. Of course I understand that features do move, the seas and land rise and fall and the units of an army might be spaced variably or damnably deployed in less or greater depth, but it should be susceptible to calculation.

I am not as dismissive of Livy as   some and suggest that Justin made a good point in referring us to occasions where Roman cavalry charged enemies frontally. Its possible that Livy is inventing here, but the story of letting go the reins to increase the velocity of the charge does sound like the sort of detail that gets passed down. We can explain the effectiveness of the charge by describing the opponents as tired and disorganised after several rounds of fighting and may have been deployed in a relatively open order and may have been surprised by a tight column of Roman cavalry suddenly emerging from a parted infantry line.
Justin gas raised the question of ancient elite cavalry charging infantry lines in several different guises. Some years ago it was received wisdom that ancient cavalry could not charge and make contact for fear of being sent flying over the rump of their horse. We now accept that a well trained and motivated man and horse can charge with impact despite lacking stirrups or a high saddle.
There is a wargamer's belief that ancient cavalry could not charge spear armed troops in good order. Where I see Justin as advancing his cause is that the equation is more nuanced . The attacking troops have got to be very highly motivated and well led. They have to have warhorses, not just any old horse, but one trained to fight. The cavalry general has to create the conditions where the opposing spearmen  are disordered, fatigued  or disheartened to the point where a charge can succeed. The magic of Alexander is his coup d'oeil, his ability to create such a point of access to an opposing formation and suddenly change speed or direction to take advantage. The very rapidity of a cavalry advance allows them to be upon a unit before it can brace and organise itself to fend off the horse.
In later periods cavalry clearly penetrated infantry formations. In the sixteenth century French knights ( albeit on plate armoured horses)  pass through Swiss pike formations. French knights were expected to enter Flemish infantry blocks. Arrian clearly expected the charging Sarmatians to be able to penetrate acRoman formation unless itvwas specially prepared. If cavalry could break in to enemy infantry formations then following up with a pike or hypaspist unit might well make sense, for cavalry are a fluid force, they can disappear into an enemy formation as Scarlett's Heavy Brigade did at Balaclava.  Infantry take and hold ground  and would becwell suited to consolidating a break through.
Whether the above combination occurred in a way that the sources can support is a matter for others more learned. However, we shoukd be perhaps a little more open to the possibility,
Roy