Good ex. of historically accurate Macedonian army?

[SuleymanGroznii]

I'm new to this whole phalanx thing on RTR, and I'm curious as what other players like as far as an accurate Macedonian army.

[Sacratus]

I'm a bit curious about this as well. I'm a bit clumsy with phalanx-based armies, but I thought that might be due to my inability to construct a historically accurate one.


I'm guessing 1 General, 6-8 bread and butter phalanx units (Or more expensive ones/elite ones for stronger armies), light infantry x2, skirmishers x2(?), slingers or archers x2(?). That leaves 5 left. Possibly 2 Light Cavalry, 1 Thessalian Cavalry, and 1 Companion Cavalry. Possibly sub 1 Light Infantry out for some Hypaspists.

This is all just a guess, and it was how I tried to set up my Macedonian armies when I played them (I quit the campaign due to my clumsiness with phalanx armies).

[Renegen]

I think historically they had a lot more cavalry than you'd expect. Also you don't need archers, or at least not a lot. Bring some skirmishers or archers to protect yourself against pesky archers or cavalry, but your tactic is occupy them with the phalanx and flank them with the cavalry.

[Sacratus]

I'm guessing 1 General, 6-8 bread and butter phalanx units (Or more expensive ones/elite ones for stronger armies), light infantry x2, skirmishers x2(?), slingers or archers x2(?). That leaves 5 left. Possibly 2 Light Cavalry, 1 Thessalian Cavalry, and 1 Companion Cavalry. Possibly sub 1 Light Infantry out for some Hypaspists.

Maybe:

1 General
2 Companion Cavalry
2 Thesallian Cavalry
2 Light Cavalry
5 Pikemen
2 Heavy Infantry for phalanx flanks.
2 Skirmishers
2 Slingers/Archers, depending on who you're fighting.
2 Light infantry for far flanks.

---

    [Skirmisher]                                            [Skirmisher]

[L.Cav][LLL][H][Phalanx][Phalanx][Phalanx][Phalanx][Phalanx][H][LLL][L.Cav]


[Thes][Comp]       [missile]               [missile]           [Comp][Thes]
                              [General]



LLL - Light Infantry
H - Heavy Infantry or Hypast(whatever they're called :()
missile - slingers or archers.

Well, I don't really know. That's basically how I composed a 'stack' when I played Macedonia.

Edit: It's pretty generic, but you don't really have a lot of room (20 slots/stack ) to add much.
Edit2: I guess you could also throw out some other units for more missile troops, or whatever. I'd probably drop the skirmishers unless I knew I was going to encounter heavily armoured troops/elephants. I'd also probably use some more infantry for attacking cities.... I'm just clumsy with phalangites.

[Quinn Inuit]

When I get around to the next version of the ExRM, all the phalanx armies should balance much better. Another forum member (Wien1938) gave me a lot of help with that a few months ago...I just haven't had time to implement all the changes.

[Quinn Inuit]

FWIW, I think Alexander usually relied on his hypaspistai, Thracians, and other light and heavy infantry during wall assaults.

[P Funk]

Maybe this can help.



First post btw. Just did a quick google and found this. Obviously not a hard and fast rule of set up but gives you a general picture of the Macedonian arrangement, much the same as the Roman Quincunx. I read that Alexander often made his left flank thin to appear weak and overloaded his right to force his enemy to attack his left so he could completely annihilate the enemy's left with his companions. Notice that the companion's are focused on the right with Thessalian on the left.

[thegravytrain18]

That graph says the hypaspists are elite heavy cavalry. I thought they were elite heavy infantry.

[svramj]

That graph says the hypaspists are elite heavy cavalry. I thought they were elite heavy infantry.

Hypaspists are spearmen who does not fight in phalanx formation. they are to support the phalanx at the flanks

[P Funk]

Hypaspists are spearmen who does not fight in phalanx formation. they are to support the phalanx at the flanks

What I read put them as still Phalanx but just faster and better able to maneuver due to their shorter lighter pike. As one book own says "...the hypaspists were usually on the right flank of the phalanx, to provide a flexible hinge between the fast-moving cavalry and the relatively slow pezataeri."

For a detailed description of the load out of a single Phalanx under Philip and Alexander I find this:

"The organization of the phalanx was remarkably like that of a modern army: a platoon (tetrachia) of 64 hoplites; company (taxiarchia) of 128; battalion (syntagma) of 256; regiment (chiliarchia) of 1024; division (simple phalanx) of 4096 hoplites. Like the modern division, the simple phalanx was a self-contained fighting unit of combined arms; in addition to the heavy infantry, it included (at theoretical full strength) 2048 peltasts, 1024 psiloi, and a cavalry regiment of 1024, for a total of about 8192 men. The grand phalanx, composed of four simple phalanxes, could be likened to a small modern field army, and had a strength of about 32 000 men."

So as you can see the Macedonians organized their armies like RAM.

Also it occurs to me that since they called it the Companion Cavalry because Alexander and Philip routinely led it, you should if anything look to use your general in the battle if you want to role play it. This is of course the opposite of the advice that is given for historic role play for Roman Legions.

[Artax]

For a detailed description of the load out of a single Phalanx under Philip and Alexander I find this:

"The organization of the phalanx was remarkably like that of a modern army: a platoon (tetrachia) of 64 hoplites; company (taxiarchia) of 128; battalion (syntagma) of 256; regiment (chiliarchia) of 1024; division (simple phalanx) of 4096 hoplites. Like the modern division, the simple phalanx was a self-contained fighting unit of combined arms; in addition to the heavy infantry, it included (at theoretical full strength) 2048 peltasts, 1024 psiloi, and a cavalry regiment of 1024, for a total of about 8192 men. The grand phalanx, composed of four simple phalanxes, could be likened to a small modern field army, and had a strength of about 32 000 men."

Great info! From which book is it?

[P Funk]

Great info! From which book is it?

The Encyclopedia of Military History by Dupuy and Dupuy, published 1977.

Its great it goes from the neolithics and the start of civilization up til the Vietnam War. Lots of great diagrams of battles and army arrangements. 1500 pages!

[Sacratus]

This is of course the opposite of the advice that is given for historic role play for Roman Legions.

I can't help it if I have that one Roman General would just -has- to get in the thick of things. The gods are with him!

[Companion Cavalry]

Also hypaspists are sometimes also called peltasts as they throw javelins as well

and svramj they were generally not employed to guard the phalanx flanks they

were an offensive part of the macedonian army to break up the enemies' flank

while the heavy cavalry outflanked the pinned down enemy flank

[Wien1938]

It is more likely that the Hypaspists fought as phalangites (pikemen) in the same model as the pezhetairoi in pitched battle, and as flexible heavy infantry when tackling special missions or rough ground.
I think that there has been a real misunderstanding by some historians of the texts in the context of battle. If you re-read Arrian on Gaugamela, the Hypaspists at the point of Alexander's decisive charge on the right are not mentioned. Arrian states that when Alexander charged into the gap, the heavy infantry raised the cheer and followed. Now a number of points need to be made.

1. Cavalry did not charge at the canter or gallop over great distances - especially disciplined and experienced cavalry such as the Companions. The reasons are simple: the horses would be blown on reaching the enemy and the unit in a wedge would need to retain formation in order to maximise their impact.
2. Over the distance between Alexander and the Persian line, the phalanx would be capable of following up the cavalry with at good speed. If we read the text in this context, then using this passage (Book 3/14):

"He promptly made for the gap, and with his Companions and all the heavy infantry in this sector of the line, drove in his wedge raising the battle cry pressed forward at the at the double straight at the point where Darius stood. A close struggle ensued, but it was soon over; for when the Macedonian horse, with Alexander himself at the head of them, vigourously pressed the assault, fighting hand to hand and thrusting at the Persian's faces with their spears, and the the infantry phalanx in close order and bristling with pikes added its irresistable weight."

3. If we read this correctly, the only foot troops WITH Alexander were pikemen - not using shorter spears, Arrian talks of pikes, which is the translation of sarissai. Earlier Arrian states that the Guards (Hypaspists) were stationed next to Alexander's Companions, so we can conclude that in the assault, the Hypaspists MUST have been armed as phalangites.
4. From the text we can conclude that Alexander assaulted the Persian Royal Guard - the apple bearers from the spear butts of the PRG. But in conclusion with battlefield spacing - the Hypapists and nearest taxis of the phalanx assaulting very soon after Alexander's attack - with Alexander attacking INTO A GAP, that he broke through a gap in the line, wheeled to the left and attacked directly into the PRG - to attack Darius. While this happened, the phalanx attacks the PRG frontally. The result is in the text, the PRG and the cream of the Persian infantry collapse under the weight of the dual assault and are slaughtered in the pursuit.

It is difficult to see how the Hypaspists can be lighter than the phalanx and not present in the action. The logical answer is that they were armed as phalangites and, in the classical Macedonian military model, assaulted the enemy elite infantry frontally, while Alexander drove in an attack on the flanks and rear. This was the essence of Macedonian tactics from Philip and there is no reason to see it change.

Richard

[P Funk]

It is difficult to see how the Hypaspists can be lighter than the phalanx and not present in the action. The logical answer is that they were armed as phalangites and, in the classical Macedonian military model, assaulted the enemy elite infantry frontally, while Alexander drove in an attack on the flanks and rear. This was the essence of Macedonian tactics from Philip and there is no reason to see it change.

Richard

That jives with my understanding of the Macedonian military order. Hypaspists on the right flank to attack there since they are considered the strongest infantry units and they are used to break down the enemy Left (Alexander's right) as Alexander and the cavalry flank and destroy the enemy Left. Once the enemy Left is gone you wheel into the Centre and Right and encircle or rout.

[Companion Cavalry]

Wien, nice to see you again


I honestly doubt the statement that Pfunk form you quoted has any element

of truth in it. there were many different roles of the macedonian army

peltasts, hypaspists/heavy peltasts, phalangites, light skirmisher cavalry,

heavy cavalry, and possibly siege machines. The hypaspists did play a unique

role and in Guagamela they were not present as they were trying to defend

Alexander's left flank form the attacking Persian right flank, which was not

defeated until after most of the battle was over

[Wien1938]

CC, I would have to disagree with your statement on the hypaspists protecting Alexander's left flank from the Persian right wing cavalry. From the descriptions of the battle taken from Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch and so on, once Darius flees, the Persian right flank cavalry are caught up in fighting the mercenary cavalry and mixed light infantry that had been deployed behind Alexander on the Macedonian right.

The big fight following the disintegration of the Persian centre comes when the remains of the Persian right centre attempt to escape the battlefield and run into the Companion cavalry. The hypaspists cannot have been protecting Alexander from the Persian right, as they themselves were on his left.
It is described as a swirling cavalry melee and takes place following the pursuit of the Persian royal guards and the cavalry placed in the centre. We do not actually know what the Macedonian infantry were doing once the units repulsed from the Macedonian camp retreated. Perhaps the hypaspists and the phalanx taxis nearest were pursuing the defeated Persian infantry reserves.

One thing that is agreed upon by analysts is that no one accurately knew what happened after Alexander broke the centre of the Persian army, partly because so much of it was in flight and more importantly, the dust clouds raised by the horses would have lowered visibility to around 200-300 yards or less.

Richard

[Companion Cavalry]

No, no wien the left side from alexander's army and the right side

of the Persian army were facing each other it's reversed if

you are facing the opposite direction


Persian Right--Persian Centre Line--Persian Left

Mac. Left--Mac. Centre Line--Mac. Right


The Persian right was caught up engaged with Alexander's left flank and then

was attacked from behind by Alexander's companions who had just charged

the Persian centre form behind.