Skeletal evidence for the cavalry charge at Chaironeia

[Andreas Johansson]

While we have Anthony confused, let's throw in this bit from Arrian 1.6.5:

Alexander 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.)

[RichT]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

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

[RichT]

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.

*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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[RichT]

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.

[RichT]

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.

[Erpingham]

Talking of the burials, we do have this sketch

[Jim Webster]

If they are the same ones they don't seem to have their feet cut off

[RichT]

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.

[Erpingham]

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. 

[RichT]

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.

[Duncan Head]

Some (but not all) of the Liston article is visible on Google Books, and here is something about the tibiae and feet.

[Erpingham]

Some (but not all) of the Liston article is visible on Google Books, and here 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 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.

[RichT]

Grim reading.

I wonder what protection helmets gave, and whether the presence or absence of helmets can be deduced from the bones.