Cavalry in the Hellenistic Period

[Wien1938]

Do you know whose opinions are held on Chaeronea? I've not run across any like opinions. Can you post any links or at least reference a source? Would be interested to read.
The surviving accounts of Chaeronea are terse and lack detail. My guess would be that a gap appeared in the Greek line and Alexander commanding the Companions broke through the gap and then combined with infantry attacking the Sacred Band and charges from the Companions (keeping the SB from reforming) resulted in the destruction of the SB.

There are a series of tomb paintings and carvings (also tomb of Alketas - see "(25.09.2006) Reiter im makedonischen Lederpanzer im Alketas-Grab", the Alexander sarcophagus and one painting which I cannot find at the moment...) which show Macedonian cavalry using the xyston over arm. The opinion of Robin Lane Fox is that the xyston was used to strike at opposing cavalrymen to topple them from their mount and Alexander's wounds were generally dagger or sword wounds, not spear or lance, which would indicate that the xyston was not used underarm (couched). I'd argue that the underarm position was the resting position for the spear/xyston, but it is possible for the weapon was used both ways. You're right about the artistic convention: the lance would have to be down to show Alexander fully. The Alexander sarcophagus is a good visual reference as well.

[Carados]

Do you know whose opinions are held on Chaeronea? I've not run across any like opinions. Can you post any links or at least reference a source? Would be interested to read.
The surviving accounts of Chaeronea are terse and lack detail. My guess would be that a gap appeared in the Greek line and Alexander commanding the Companions broke through the gap and then combined with infantry attacking the Sacred Band and charges from the Companions (keeping the SB from reforming) resulted in the destruction of the SB.

http://pothos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2841

[Boom S]

Scotus, if you are reading this, I was reading a book called 'Cavalry Operations in Ancient Greek World' by Robert Gaebel.

the author seems to have some experience with riding, unlike most. anyway, he makes a couple of interesting points,
> even today riders are trained to ride without stirrups and for a trained rider it's actually easier to control a horse without stirrups. is this true ?
>the normal bareback and without stirrup riding position is knees bent and toes pointing down. if this is true then all cavalry skeletons in RTW needs to be redone !

[Quinn Inuit]

>the normal bareback and without stirrup riding position is knees bent and toes pointing down. if this is true then all cavalry skeletons in RTW needs to be redone !

/me runs away screaming at the thought of skeleton modding.

[Wien1938]

I would remark after having read the Pothos discussion that the "most seasoned generals" (probably including Parmenion) would have been on that wing in anycase as the Thebans (esp. the SB) were better hoplites than the Athenians. These would have been the most experienced phalanx brigades in the Macedonian army (noting that the phalanx was called the "foot companions", which some in the Pothos discussion seem to have misunderstood). Since I have my doubts that Alexander had ever fought in a sarissa-bearing phalanx (certainly no source leaves that impression), then we are left with two choices.
1. Alexander was present with the dismounted companion cavalry as conventional hoplites.
2. Alexander was posed with the mounted companions. Certainly this would fit well with the Macedonian model of warfare - hammer and anvil.

If under the first scenario, this is incompatible with the SB being destroyed by Macedonian troops armed with the sarissa unless Alexander was in the sarissa-bearing phalanx, which as above, I would argue against. A sarissa is not a glorious, Homeric style weapn simply because of its length - killing at a distance is disapproved of under the heroic ethos. The only other explanation that comes to mind is a flank charge by dismounted companions into the SB but that keeps running up against the sarissa problem.
Additionally, I have my doubts over Alexander personally hacking his way into the SB because they were seasoned professionals and he could very likely have been killed on such a foray. The status of heir would rule against such a venture to my thinking.

If under the second scenario we borrow from Polyaenus and look at the "fatigue issue", then if the Companions were held in reserve behind the Macedonian left (because terrain restrictions) and consider that the phalanx fight had continued for some time, then we can bring in two extra factors: Alexander's intuition and the unexpected speed of a heavy cavalry charge. As was well known by Polybios's day, the stress of combat particularly affected the Macedonian phalanx but also all such heavy infantry formations, then if a sufficient gap had opened in the Macedonian lines, then a shock charge by the Companions at this gap, combined with the stress being felt on the SB's line elsewhere would have produced sufficient uncertainty and loss of coherence in the SB for a charge to break in, though and out of the SB. The SB then would still have died facing the Macedonian sarissas but this would have happened very quickly once their formation was broken. At the same time, Philip had broken the Athenians and the allied army was put to rout.
I would add as conjecture that there was no great pursuit added after the battle was won, which would fit the standard mould of Greek warfare at the time. Certainly if Alexander had commanded the army, the pursuit would have been so devastating so as to have crippled the fighting capacity of both Thebes and Athens. This would mirror Alexander's pursuits following Issus and Gaugamela.

[HLandin]

Very insightful commentary Wien1938. You seem to have access to a wealth of material and have formed a convincing argument.

About heavy infantry combat, the general consensus is that it was physically exhausting and could not be maintained long (I think the figure 10 to 15 minutes max at a time for someone physically fit, hence the roman practice at least by the time of the Marian legion of men being rotated in and out of combat to rest before resuming the fight, see the scene from the first episode of Rome of the legionaries against the Gauls).

The charge of companions breaking the already engaged infantry would also correlate to the typical practice by that time of the calvary being the arm of decision (like you said, hammer and anvil). For it is considered practically impossible for a phalangites to face both forwards and backwards due to the long length of their weapon.

[Wien1938]

Well, to borrow from Duncan Head (again!) to be engaged from the rear or flank whilst simultaneously engaged frontally would be a difficult situation for any body of troops.

My argument is however just that: an argument. I could be wrong but this is my reading of the matter.

There is an interesting supposition I'd read somewhere that infantry combat periodically broke off for rest as both sides became two exhausted. Certainly otherwise, the battles of hours long sustained combat could not have been fought out.

I might add that the scene from Rome is supposition too but one which seems to work if the above is accepted.

[Caesar Augustus]

Indeed, I would imagine that it would require an absolutely epic amount of stamina to keep up sustained combat.

[Carados]

I'd go as far as saying it's impossible. Seasoned soldiers back then would've been of solid build, but they wouldn't have the same level of depth of workout/exercise/whatever! Nowadays, people can calculate, to a certain degree of accuracy, the energy gained from food and also what kind of energy it is and how fast the body burns it (through those weird cardiowhatever tests and all sorts of malarky - sports science is definitely something I lack specific knowledge in). Plus, all these high energy foods wouldn't be available to them. Food was probably all of local produce.

Add on to that the typical panoply:
Helmet
Shield
Linothorax/Cuirass
Spear

Suddenly you have a very uncomfortable situation. Add in to that the confined space and the large amount of heat given off by an infantry line, exacerbated by the equipments side-effect of trapping heat next to the body... The human body is designed to support it's own weight. Add anything on top of that and it begins to struggle at an alarming rate. There is also the constant psychological pressure and the need to maintain formation both in terms of position within the phalanx and combat stance - which might not be the best way to support the weight or remove the heat.


Back to Chaeronea, I'm still going to sit on the fence. Cavalry seems to be mentioned at some point, 2000 strong in all, but the type isn't specified. It would also make sense for the generals to all be mounted - not so much that they can then charge into the enemy, but more to command their respective parts of the army with more ease.

Additionally, I have my doubts over Alexander personally hacking his way into the SB because they were seasoned professionals and he could very likely have been killed on such a foray. The status of heir would rule against such a venture to my thinking.

This is perhaps the strongest point against fighting in the infantry in my opinion, especially against the sacred band. Alexander is still what, 18 years old? There is no way he could take on soliders of that caliber. Only fanciful heroes could do that and Alexander was no God-slayer. Add to that Phillips generals were with him - it would be beyond disastrous for all of them to fall in combat against possibly the strongest infantry unit of the day. However, one could point out that being part of the macedonian phalanx is actually rather safe from a frontal perspective. Five rows of spears is difficult to get past after all.

A gap appearing in the Greek line would be plausible in allowing for a cavalry charge. This would probably have to be a flank or rear charge because I don't see him getting any of the light infantry, nor do I see the Greek line routing in the same manner as the Persians did. And I most definitely don't accept a frontal charge working unless a gap has appeared - but this would have to be a gap in both the Greek and Macedonian line.

[Juan_de_Marco]

But it is not as if the ancients knew nothing about food/ energy/ workout. We just don't know how much they knew. We do know that War is an ancient profession, and if you have professional soldiers they are bound to know something about these things. Through training or experience. Maybe some combat styles were devised to make the soldiers last longer on the battlefield? For instance holding a Sarissa straight up if you're not in the combat line reduces the effective weight: weight x arm = ... (a couple? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couple_(mechanics) (not sure about the term in english))

And this is just one example, there may be more... There is actually so much NOT written down about warfare in history when I think about it. how frustrating.

[Boom S]

posting here for more eyeballs.

gentlemen (and ladies, are there any), can I have some help over this ? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=376959

[Alkidas]

I am not an expert of Macedonian warfare, but do we actually have any evidence suggesting in a credible way that the battle was indeed decided by a cavalry charge? Doesn't the evidence point to infantry having played the decisive role? Again, an expert might disagree, but I don't find it very implausible for Alexander wanting to 'earn his spurs' by being present where the fighting was the hardest. This would surely have encouraged the 'ordinary' Macedonians who needed to win. And as we know, Alexander later on was not afraid to risk his own life in battle. Also, he was often present where the battle was to be decided. Philip might have seen this as a risk, but then if you're fighting a pitched battle, you are taking a major risk in any case. Of course when it comes to this battle all theories are necessarily very speculative.

[Sardaukar One]

Re Chaeronea.

When Philip arrived at Chaeronea, he found the combined Greek army in a strong position, with a river on one side and the hill with the Acropolis on it on the other side. Clearly the Greeks wanted to negate the threat posed by the vastly superior Macedonian cavalry and make it an infantry fight on their terms.

Philip commanded the right wing with the Hypaspists, opposite the Athenians. Philip advanced in an oblique formation, with the Hypaspists leading and they engaged the Athenians. The sources state that Philip retreated and the Athenians left their positions to give pursuit. That after retreating for a bit, he ordered his units to turn and attack.
A very plausible theory, in my opinion, that has been around for quite sometime, is that Philip lured the Athenians out of position by feigning retreat. Perhaps realizing that this strategy may not work on the Thebans, he chose the more inexperienced Athenians to try and trick. And it worked.
Presumably Philip ordered his right wing to turn and attack once a sufficient gap had been created by the Athenian pursuit.
The result was that the Athenians left their positions, creating a large gap in-between the center of the allied Greek line. Alexander, being stationed on the Macedonian left, then rode through the gap created by the Athenians leaving their position and Alexander turned to attack the Theban left and rear, rolling up their line in conjucture with the incoming phalanx units of the Macedonian left wing.
As I understand it, the Macedonians were already flanking the Theban right with light troops and light cavalry.
Regardless, the Thebans were now in serious trouble due to the Athenians being drawn out of position, and its not suprising to me that the Sacred Band got pretty much tonked. The Macedonian pikemen closing in on them from the front and Alexander attacking from the flank and rear, rolling up the Theban line.

As for the Athenians, the combination of seeing Alexander lead the Companions into the space they had vacated along with the Macedonian right wing under Philip turn and bear down on them seems to have proved too much for them. They broke and fled.

I'm not aware of the Macedonians pursuing the Greek army. I believe the Athenians and Thebans had two or three thousand hoplites killed between them with perhaps twice that many being captured. Thats quite a loss considering there were 18-20,000 hoplites present.

To me, the idea that Alexander fought in the phalanx is a loony one. He was trained to fight on horseback with the other companions. Not on foot with the pikemen. Alexander's history to this point also pretty much backs this up.

As for the statement that Alexander defeated the Sacred Band with Sarrisa's, well, in a sense he may have.
I agree that charging head on into the Sacred band would seem to border on the insane, even for the Companions. So it may well be that the pikemen helped with this. Perhaps the threat of an incoming Alexander forced them to change positions, making them vulnerable to the advancing Macedonian phalanx?
Hence they were overcome by sarrisas.
Or maybe the phalanx attacked from the front, Alexander and the companions attacked from the flank and rear. Which is what I think happened.
Its also quite possible that the sources simply got it wrong. Or left something out.
It wouldn't be the first time. Peltasts being confused with Hypaspists and vice versa springs to mind.


Getting back to Philip's strategy of engaging the enemy, then withdrawing, before turning to attack ; it might seem a little hard to believe that the phalanx would be capable of this.
But I think that it was only the Hypaspists that actually engaged the Athenians before feigning retreat.
They were the leading unit when Philip advanced in oblique formation. And the Hypaspists strike me as a bunch that could do this easily.
So as long as the pikemen had not engaged, I think it very plausible that they were able to pull this off in short time.
Other evidence to back this up is that Philip had drilled his army into a very disciplined and efficient crew.
And at Gaugamela, some of the pikemen were able to turn to their rear pretty sharpish when the Persians that had broken through to their camp looked like they were going to attack them from the rear.

On a personal note, I think that Chaeronea is very much the template for Gaugamela i.e. finding a way to create a gap in the enemy line so that the death blow can be delivered by the companions.
And further evidence that Philip would have just as easily have beaten the Persians as Alexander did.

[Boom S]

does anyone know how javelin armed cavalrymen carried the spare javelins ? all in hand as depicted in RTW or hung them somewhere from the horse ?
are there any references in the old texts ?

[Caesar Augustus]

I've not ready any of the texts Boom, but my guess is there would be some kind of holder incorporated into the saddle?

[Carados]

I don't think so, that would obstruct movement.

If anything, they would have a strap of some sort attached to the shield, if they used a shield, to keep them together. Otherwise, simply holding them is likely to be the best. Having said that, it would still make sense for them to have something to use as grip - perhaps some form of cloth - because otherwise the javelins risk slipping out of the hand.

-----------------------Edit------------------------
Apparently the Greeks used a throwing strap in conjunction with their weapons.

[Boom S]

I was wondering if they carried the javelins behind the riders, much like mongol horsemen carried their quivers ? perhaps hung from a leather strip in a loop from which a rider can pull it out easily without risking damage to himself or the horse ?

carrying it in hand is a little impractical IMO, because you anyway need one hand on the reins and if you have a spear that takes up the other hand as well. after all cavalry needed to carry those things not only for the duration of battle but also during the long marches that cavalry had to do. except during battles, even shields were usually not carried in hand but hung from somewhere on the reins and saddle system.

[Rolling Thunder]

Interesting article here. I've always been of the opinion that shock cavalry clearly existed prior to the invention of the stirrup - the Companions were undoubtedly shock cavalry themselves, and Cataphracts are clearly intended as shock platforms primarily.

So, I'm planning to install this mod and sub-mod and test it out against Europa Barbarorum for my own sadistic pleasure.

[Alkidas]

I wouldn't be surprised if the sources had got something wrong. Certainly a sarissa-armed infantry couldn't have withdrawn without seriously risking their own annihilation. That is simply not credible as a tactic. Even hypaspists with shorter spears would have found this difficult, but this might have been possible, but then the presence of sarissas becomes a problem. All I can say is that this really is one hard battle to grasp.

[Sardaukar One]

I agree with you about pikemen advancing, then withdrawing, then attacking again. The Macedonian phalanx did do something similar at Gaugamela. And they did so in short time.
But considering how the battle played out, do you really think that the Athenians made the Macedonian right wing retreat? Far more likely is that it was a feint. Made all the more possible by the fact that Philip advanced in oblique formation, leading with the Hypaspists with the other pike units trailing. There would have been more space between the pike units and the enemy, giving them a greater chance of pulling this movement off.
If it was only the Hypaspists that actually engaged the Athenians, I think its very plausible that they could have pulled this off. It doesn't seem likely to me that the Athenians could have caught them. Certainly not the hoplites.
Plus the Hypaspists would surely have shielded the withdraw of the phalanx brigades. To some degree anyway.