Cavalry in the Hellenistic Period

[Alkidas]

I did mean faint, as you did. I do think it was possible.What I do not believe is that the pikemen could have moved back and then attacked again. We know well how clumsy this formation was and such a move would have quite likely ended up in disaster with a phalanx in disorder attacked by the Athenians. After all, maintaining a solid wall of pikes is essential to the survival of the men. Once it is breached, bad things will follow. And these were not yet the veterans that had fought many battles against the Persians. Another thing which we can safely cross out is a frontal cavalry attack against the Sacred Band. But again, it's much easier to cross out things than to say what actually happened. To me it seems quite plausible that the pikemen simply defeated the Sacred Band in a long, infantry-dominated battle, without any cavalry flanking movements. I do find the Foot Companions quite able to do this.

[Sardaukar One]

The Macedonian phalanx of Philip and Alexander was far more mobile than their contemporaries in later successor armies. They were nowhere near as heavily armoured as the Seleucid phalanx of Antiochus III for example.
Philip could march these guys all over the place. In some of the battles of Alexander, we find the phalanx doing things that the later phalanx' could not.
Still, I doubt that they engaged the Athenians. That it was just the Hypaspists.

And these were not yet the veterans that had fought many battles against the Persians.

You are completely wrong about that. These guys were veterans of the highest order in my opinion.
Philip had beaten the Illyrians and Thracians. He had taken a number of towns and cities on the coast of Macedon from the Greeks and others. In light of the ferocity of the Thracians, taking on the Persians was probably a walk in the park.

Philip had spent something like 20 years building and training his army. And was on campaign almost every year of his reign. Its one reason for Olympias having a hold on Alexander.
Anyway, Philip's army was veteran through and through. Its a big reason Alexander conquered the Persian Empire so quickly.

As I understand it, the battle was over in a relatively short amount of time.

Take a look at "Warfare in the Classical World" by John Warry, pg 68 for the description of Chaeronea.
It easily makes the most sense. In my opinion.

[Alkidas]

That they were less clumsy than the later Mac. phalanx is true, but doesn't change the fact that fundamentally this kind of pike-formation was clumsy and not able to pull off such a move that would have been required to draw the Athenians after them without seriously compromising their ability to fight.

When I said 'veterans', I obviously meant veterans in the use of sarissa. It's some time since I read about this matter, but I recall that Macedonian phalanx armed with sarissas may have been quite a recent development at the time of Chaeronea. Anyway, this is a minor point and I agree that Philip's infantry was good and experienced. The main point is that they would hardly have been able to pull off a feint retreat successfully.

Taking on the Persians a walk on the park? Well if you say so.

[Caesar Augustus]

I don't know much, but I thought the sarissa was introduced by Philip pretty early, didn't he get the idea from a Theban general when he was a hostage there?

[Carados]

I still don't quite understand the big deal with the phalanx and not being able to move much. Isn't it mainly just a case of lifting the sarissa so it's vertical, turning 180 degrees, marching for a little while, turning 180 again and then lowering the weapon?

It would obviously require a lot of training, but that's exactly what they had, no?

[messiah]

I don't know much, but I thought the sarissa was introduced by Philip pretty early, didn't he get the idea from a Theban general when he was a hostage there?

Well, the Thebans didn't use a sarissa. They used a longer spear and as I remember also held it with both hands. I have made a small YouTube video about how the phalanx was inspired by the Iphicratean peltasts and the Theban Sacred Band here and here. The first video also has some basic stuff about the phalangites.

I still don't quite understand the big deal with the phalanx and not being able to move much. Isn't it mainly just a case of lifting the sarissa so it's vertical, turning 180 degrees, marching for a little while, turning 180 again and then lowering the weapon?

It would obviously require a lot of training, but that's exactly what they had, no?

Well, there are several reasons why it is not recomended. First of all, the most experienced and bravest soldiers (also being the best armed) were in the first two ranks and if you turn around, you have unarmoured men in the first ranks, while the experienced soldiers can only give a moral boost of some sort being in the back. Second, while a great move in theory, in a battle situation it would have had little practical meaning (usually if someone outflanked you it would be light infantry or cavalry, and there would be no reason to charge alone if you would have defeated the heavy infantry.). Third, all of the officers have to change positions and run around, also, add this to the movement itself and it would be very time consuming.

I personally believe that at Chaeronea the hypaspists (as, I've read in a book, would have access to all sorts of weapons like javelins, spears, sarissas, like the later Silver Shields during the Diadochi Wars) would have retreated as seen in the film "Alexander" at the battle of the Hydaspes - very slowly marching backwards, with their sarissa in front to ward off enemies. While it is true that such a move is very complicated to execute whilst keeping formation, I don't think it would have been impossible for hypaspists or even pezhetairoi, provided if they have some covering fire from the skirmishers.

I once heard that a person (who shall remain nameless) suggested the phalangites put their sarissas vertically (indicating a sign of surrender), thus making the Athenians believe they were retreating. However, it is not possible because:
1) it's suicide;
2) it means surrender, not run away;
3) after they would have taken they're sarissas up, ran away (even if they had a storm of support fire) and reformed again, there would not have been enough time to organise a spear wall in front of the greeks before the macedonians would be cut down.

I would not go as far as to say that the Persians were a walk in the park, as they were excellent skirmishers and had superb cavalry and even some decent infantry, but none of this could stand up the a combined arms approach, strong, experienced infantry and cavalry. But neither could the Thracians. However, if on equal numbers, I'd probably go with the Thracians, because of their skirmishers, falxes, cavalry and tactics.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that whatver you may think of it, the phalanx wasn't that inflexible. Of course it couldn't compete with Roman legionaries, but, for example, at the battle of Gabiene (316 BC), the Silver Shields formed a square to ward off cavalry. I know this was done by the experienced soldiers of Alexander's campaigns, but, with enough training, anyone could do it, IMO. It just comes to show what a phalanx can do with good leadership and rigorous training.

[Alkidas]

Afaik the earliest evidence of the use of sarissa by the Macedonians is related to Chaeronea. It could well be, though, that someone is aware of archaeological findings that I'm not. Again afaik the sources don't necessarily support the idea that the battle was decided by cavalry. Diodorus has been interpreted as referring to Alexander leading a successful infantry attack against the Sacred Band.

[Sardaukar One]

Nice one Messiah. I don't think I can say it much better than you did. But i'll give it a shot!

Philip introduced the Sarrisa early on in his reign. He may have even introduced it prior to his taking the throne. Perdiccas, Philip's older brother, and king, got him back from Thebes and made him a governor.
Perdiccas probably let him start his military reforms here. Perdiccas would surely have been all for it.
When Philip became King in 359 BC, Diodorus comments that Philip was able to turn to his military reforms immediately. The inference being that it was already underway before Philip became King.

Philip learnt the advantages of deepening the phalanx and of using the oblique formation from Thebes. But the Thebans used hoplites, not pikemen. I don't know how Philip figured on the pike, but figure on it he did.
The economical costs were obvious. It would be much cheaper to arm his soldiers as pikemen than as hoplites. And he could achieve very much the same results.

That they were less clumsy than the later Mac. phalanx is true, but doesn't change the fact that fundamentally this kind of pike-formation was clumsy and not able to pull off such a move that would have been required to draw the Athenians after them without seriously compromising their ability to fight.

Read a detailed account of Gaugamela, where we see a couple of the phalanx brigades turn around to their rear to cover the threat posed by the Persian troops who had broken through the gaps in the Macedonian lines and attacked the Macedonian camp. They did so quite quickly once they were free to do so and drove these Persians off with other reserve units.

Messiah has already pointed out what the Silver Shields did at Gabiene. And some of these guys probably fought at Chaeronea. If the phalanx was engaged, I would agree with you. If not, I think its plausible they could do this. Philip drilled these guys an awful lot. They were fighting every year. And they didn't take their wives and kids with them either. So they could cover some ground.

As Messiah said, they may very well have backed up. But I also think that they could have turned and pulled back. As long as their pikes were not down and they had not engaged the enemy.
Whatever happened, it seems pretty clear that the Athenians could not have driven the Macedonians back as such unless Philip had let them do so.

If Alexander had fought 250,000 Thracians at Gaugamela, I think he takes a lot more casualties.
A lot more.

[Alkidas]

Read a detailed account of Gaugamela, where we see a couple of the phalanx brigades turn around to their rear to cover the threat posed by the Persian troops who had broken through the gaps in the Macedonian lines and attacked the Macedonian camp. They did so quite quickly once they were free to do so and drove these Persians off with other reserve units.

I have absolutely no problem with believing that they were able to turn around and attack Persians plundering their camp. What I don't understand is how this is relevant.

But in any case this discussion is largely hypothetical in the sense that I think no one here seems to think that the pikemen actually performed a feint retreat. If indeed anyone did - for instance, Diodorus's description of the battle clearly refers to a long-lasting, bloody affair (bloody for both sides). If there was a feint retreat of any kind he certainly omits any reference to it. His account would make sense for a long infantry battle, but (since it lacks details) it leaves room for other solutions as well. Polyaenus has the feint retreat - possible, but problematic.

[Sardaukar One]

I have absolutely no problem with believing that they were able to turn around and attack Persians plundering their camp. What I don't understand is how this is relevant.

And herein lies the problem.

The Macedonians performed this manouvre quickly is the point. Changing directions?
Advancing, retreating, then turning around to face the other way!
Saying all this, I think Messiah is right that Philip had them back up as opposed to turning around.
A contolled retreat if you will.

But in any case this discussion is largely hypothetical in the sense that I think no one here seems to think that the pikemen actually performed a feint retreat.

I didn't know you had polled everyone here on the matter.

I can quote two or three modern sources who would disagree with you.
Didn't Polyaenus suggest that it was a feint? Its not as if Polyaenus is very reliable.
Just because you haven't come across something before doesn't make it wrong.

To top off this point, I also don't think anyone here seems to think that the Athenians would last long against the "veteran" Macedonian pikemen.

If indeed anyone did - for instance, Diodorus's description of the battle clearly refers to a long-lasting, bloody affair (bloody for both sides).

With Diodorus being Greek, and with historians of this era having a penchant for embelishing the achievements of their countrymen, I think we can take the bloody affair for both sides with a pinch of salt.
There is no mention of Philip being handicapped by losses suffered from Chaeronea afterwards.
I'd add that the Athenians later on tried to blame this defeat of treachery. Which usually only happens when incompetence is at an extreme. Which it was at Chaeronea for the Athenians.
If there had been a hard fought battle, would treachery really have been used as an excuse for defeat?

If there was a feint retreat of any kind he certainly omits any reference to it. His account would make sense for a long infantry battle, but (since it lacks details) it leaves room for other solutions as well. Polyaenus has the feint retreat - possible, but problematic.

The allied Greeks suffered heavy losses in deaths and prisoners. As the Macedonians did not pursue the Greeks with any zest, to have inflicted this kind of loss on the Greeks, they must have gotten around and behind the Greek line with cavalry.
Unless of course you think that the Greeks suffered such heavy casualties from the pikemen alone.
But who knows, maybe the pikemen rounded up some four thousand prisoners on top of 2-3,000 kills?
Battles between two phalanx armies rarely racked up these kinds of one sided losses.

[Sardaukar One]

Here are some modern day historians whose view on the battle of Chaeronea I have espoused in earlier posts. Perhaps we should classify them as those who don't believe that Philip feigned retreat?

1) Philip of Macedon by Nicholas Hammond

http://www.amazon.com/Philip-Macedon...1508215&sr=1-1

2) Phillip II of Macedonia by Ian Worthington

http://www.amazon.com/Philip-II-Mace...1508215&sr=1-2

3) Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry

http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Classi...1508159&sr=1-2


Finally, here is the wikipedia link for Chaeronea. Not that wikipedia is very reliable, but it does have a map of the battle showing what happened. Its not a very good map, but the point is clear enough.
Philip drew the Athenians out of position, and Alexander and the cavalry exploited the Athenian pursuit. As soon as this was done, Philip made short work of the Athenians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ba..._338_BC_en.svg

Apparently the battle started at dawn and was over a few hours later.

[messiah]

Well, if I were to abandoned my view that it was a controlled, decieving retreat, I'd still have problems accepting the battle as a long, bloody fight.

First, when you put a hoplite against a pikeman, one has the range the other has armour. I can't see how it can be very bloody apart from one side fleeing.
Second, battles in this era weren't as bloody as many think. Most casualities were suffered whilst one army retreated, whilst in the battle itself casualities were minimal. Take for instance the battle of Crannon, 43'000 macedonian infantry fought against 25'000 greek hoplites. This is one of the rare battles were casualities are actually modest. Sources claim 130 macedonians and 500 greeks as slain in combat (don't forget, there was also a 5'000 VS 3'500 cavalry battle before both infantry sides clashed.
And my third point is again basically the first point; this one is for you, Sardaukar . Though I respect your knowledge on this era, I disagree with you saying that it is hard to imagine Athenians standing up to Macedonian veterans. Of course, when you compare experience and proffesionality, Macedonians win, but all hoplites carried their huge aspis shield, making prolonged combat possible. Again, most cassualities would be once caught out of formation (feigned retreat) and/or loss of moral (again, feigned retreat or maybe a differant theory would be noticing Alexander and his companions charging through the gap. If one assumes that Alexander led infantry, then I see no way the Macedonians could crush the spirit of the Greeks, who were defending their homes). To make it short, I can see prolonged combat possible, but not it being bloody.

And I agree with Sardaukar on 2 things - 1., Alexander (or any commander) would probably have lost against 250'000 Thracians. Probably, because commanding such a force requires great skill. 2. - the unreliability of most accounts on many instances. Ancient accounts make either their side (Greeks, Romans, Macedonians etc) look very superiour, or, at the start very weak and grow to dominate everyone else because their awesome. (at least I see this when I read Livy's account on the 2nd Punic War)

[Alkidas]

Ok, I will now withdraw from this discussion. I have absolutely no idea why Sardaukar One seems to get upset everytime I say anything and on top of that put stuff in my mouth loads of stuff in his posts which I would never agree with. Discussion means dealing with different opinions you know, not fighting them like they were mortal enemies. If he had actually read my posts, he would know by now that I never really even disagreed with him.

I can understand why Macedonians would have won an infantry battle, but also why they would have suffered in the process, but it's better that I will leave this discussion now.

[Sardaukar One]

I'm like this on a lot of posts. Its not personal. I apologize if you think that, but its not meant to be that way.
Its not as if you are blameless on this front either I might add.

All I will say is that the explanation of Philip feigning retreat to exploit an advantage is very plausible. And very much in character with Philip himself. Its not my explanation. Its an explantion of the battle I came across while reading up on the era. But it makes a lot of sense to me.
Far more than the Athenians holding the Macedonians to a standstill for hour after hour, losing only when they got tired. Also, this type of battle isn't in the template for Philip or Alexander. They were masters of exploiting a weakness. And of creating one. Especially Philip.

If Philip had opted to pursue the Greeks, the Greek losses would surely have been catastrophic.
The reason Philip did not pursue seems to be that he needed the Greeks for his war with Persia. Especially the Athenian navy. So, he let them flee the battlefield unmolested. I believe he also freed all the Athenian prisoners and treated Athens well in negotiations, all things considered.

Again, my apologies.

[Sardaukar One]

I've never really been into Doctor Who. Too many versions of him as well. It's like James Bond - the James Bond to me is Pierce Brosnan, no one else.

Come on Carados! Pierce Brosnan?


I'm truly shocked!

[Alkidas]

I'm like this on a lot of posts. Its not personal. I apologize if you think that, but its not meant to be that way.

No problem. Although my friendly advice would be: never write when you are angry, because it is quite likely to damage your case quite a bit - regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

Other than that, I suppose I should then clarify that I don't take sides with regards to whether there was or wasn't a decisive cavalry charge. I think one can find much to say in favor of both views, and my honest response is: I don't know. Yes, most scholars would go with the decisive cavalry charge view, but there are many who see the infantry as decisive (pikemen defeating the Sacred Band) - numbers don't really matter. Although primary sources should be respected, so I
and even though they are obviously not always right, they should be proven wrong rather than just making claims about them on basis of whatever assumptions. And one should use other primary sources against them when doing that, Wikipedia isn't too convincing for obvious reasons (besides, I recall that the Wikipedia article in question makes references to both views concerning the battle).

[Sardaukar One]

No problem. Although my friendly advice would be: never write when you are angry, because it is quite likely to damage your case quite a bit - regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

I didn't write angry.

And you shouldn't get too upset!

Other than that, I suppose I should then clarify that I don't take sides with regards to whether there was or wasn't a decisive cavalry charge. I think one can find much to say in favor of both views, and my honest response is: I don't know. Yes, most scholars would go with the decisive cavalry charge view, but there are many who see the infantry as decisive (pikemen defeating the Sacred Band) - numbers don't really matter.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with anything you have said here. And you have taken a side.
Who are the many? Apart from you?
Most people actually think the battle was won with a cavalry charge. As is the case with just about all the major battles fought by Philip and Alexander.
The question is how the Macedonians implemented this at Chaeronea considering the defensive position adopted by the allied Greek army.
The answer is simple. Philip used the inexperience and gullibility of the Athenians to his own advantage.

Although primary sources should be respected, so I and even though they are obviously not always right, they should be proven wrong rather than just making claims about them on basis of whatever assumptions. And one should use other primary sources against them when doing that, Wikipedia isn't too convincing for obvious reasons (besides, I recall that the Wikipedia article in question makes references to both views concerning the battle).

Diodourus lived some 250 years after Chaeronea. Does that make him a primary source?
He surely must have relied on the accounts of others for Chaeronea?
How can we prove them wrong? If they are obviously not right, why do we have to prove them wrong?
To do that we would have to have some eye witness accounts.
Assumptions? What assumptions are those? The only assumption I see here is the one that the Greeks fought the Macedonians to a standstill while also inflicting heavy casualties. There is absolutely nothing to support this view other than the questionable version by Diodorous, writing 250 years after the fact.
Polyaenus has a far more likely version of what happened. That Philip lured the Athenians out of their position and Alexander led the cavalry into the gap created by this.
The reality is that this is a far more realistic and plausible event of what happened. Its the view of the majority really.

I'm suprised that no one here seems to have been aware of this actually. I guess Philip plays second fiddle to Alexander for most. Its a shame, because I think he was easily the equal of his son as a general(not a fighter, a general) and was a far superior diplomat and statesman.

I posted the wikipedia article for the map. I also happen to find wikipedia not particularly reliable too.
Saying that, I think its far from coincidence that the map shows the version of the battle that is accepted by the majority. And the one that I have put forth here.
Its quite easy to see why the Theban Sacred Band could be described as being put to the sword by sarrissas and Alexander. The companions could very well have arrived while the SB were being engaged by the pikemen to devastating effect.

[Carados]

What? I don't watch films very often and my first encounter with James Bond was Goldeneye...

The N64 game

[Caesar Augustus]

You know a thread's gone off topic when you're discussing James Bond in a Hellenistic cavalry thread

[Carados]

Ahhh, not necessarily. You get to drive a tank in the 3rd level. Looks like cavalry to me that? Albeit on tracks and not hooves.

Which reminds me, I saw this before (warning: language)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thought it was hilarious.