Skeletal evidence for the cavalry charge at Chaironeia

[Duncan Head]

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; it is "Skeletal Evidence for the Impact of Battle on Soldiers and Non‐Combatants", published in Lee Brice (ed.) New Approaches to Greek and Roman Warfare (2020). 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" - 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.

[Erpingham]

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/

[RichT]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

I'm just picking flowers and admiring the scenery... 💐

Edit: It does seem prima facie to be less than absolutely convincing.

[RichT]

Still without having read Liston, in Sears/Willeke it says:

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.

[Erpingham]

So, 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.

[Erpingham]

There are some interesting further details of the burial mounds and their excavation in John Ma's article, 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.

[Cantabrigian]

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?

[Erpingham]

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.

[RichT]

There is some interesting further details of the burial mounds and there excavation in John Ma's article, discussed by Sear's and Willeke. 

Yup, just read it! I hurried over the bits about flanged butt spikes...

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.

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.

[Imperial Dave]

thanks for the link Duncan, extremely interesting

[Duncan Head]

Ma'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? 

[Erpingham]

Ma'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? 

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"? 

[Duncan Head]

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"?

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. (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.