Cavalry in the Hellenistic Period

[messiah]

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.

You insult me. I think the same on Philip as you do, but I'd also add they both had great minds - Philip needing a cheaper, yet more powerful army to defeat the Greeks (possibly persians in his mind) and he created it from scratch; Alexander knew he had to take Persian customs to be accepted by his conquered people and he wanted to get the Persians to work with and as phalanx troops.

[Juan_de_Marco]

But considering the 'Macedonian' style of warfare, of cavalry and infantry being respectively hammer and anvil, I feel it is more likely that the infantry managed to pin the enemy, for whatever reasons, and the cavalry was used as shock.
Adding the lifetime it takes to train someone as a professional in either the proper use of a Sarissa or as a cavalry soldier, it is equally more likely that Alexander was with the companions.

but Wien already said this on page 4.


I have another question. Right now in ExRM, most of the Greeks have in most AoR's Prodromoi available. Is this correct for the timeperiod, Quinn? And if not, should we keep it/change it/think about it?

[messiah]

As far as I know, the Hammer & Anvil is a popular myth, because the infantry weapons were used to attack, not hold an enemy in place. Also, if phalanxes became more common than cavalry in later years, then how did they win if they held the enemy in place? And third, phalanxes often defeated the enemy before the cavalry could come in.

[Wien1938]

Actually analysing the battles of Alexander's era, the "hammer and anvil" combination is sound. The Phalanx could defeat all foot opposed to it but the Macedonian battles were resolved in a short time. Compare this to most Roman battles of the period and you'll observe that Roman battles often degenerated into attrition-based slugfests.
In the later Helenistic period, cavalry only become rarer in Greece and Macedon, due as much to the losses of the Diadochi era as to any changes in warfare. The phalanx remains effective but it is limited to smooth ground to gain maximum effectiveness. A cavalry force cooperating with a pike phalanx could rapidly destabilise the enemy line to the point of rout.
Also to point this out: to "hold an enemy in place" is to exert sufficient pressure on him in order to prevent his reacting to other moves. This is the standard definition in military terminology of a "holding attack". The phalanx was not fast but it exerted a threat because to stand up to its charge, the enemy line had to be focused on fighting it. That the phalanx was used to win in straight fights isn't a surprise given that cavalry actions became a lot less decisive from the mid third century onwards.
At Heraclea and Asculum, Pyrrhos won because he was eventually able to break through on one wing against the Romans and destabilise their fighting lines sufficiently to cause a retreat. At Magnesia, the cavalry wing under Antiochos broke the Roman left but failed to coordinate with the phalanx and elephants which were also unable to advance because of the disruption of the Seleucid left (against the Pergamenes); the centre left exposed was broken when the elephants panicked under missile fire. Melee combat was an exhausting and uncertain affair - the Romans countered this by deploying in triplex acies (three lines of reserves), the Greeks by committing to a decisive infantry attack (the hoplite phalanx), the Macedonians (under Philip and Alexander) by committing a deeper phalanx frontal attack combined with a flanking shock cavalry attack to shatter the enemy's cohesion.

[Alkidas]

Ok, Sardaukar one - I'm going to say this for the very last time. Do not comment on my messages if you are not at all serious, but only intending to twist my words. Congratulations: you have deliberately and completely failed to understand their content. It is common courtesy to actually read someone's message before commenting on them.

[Caligula Caesar]

You don't need to turn around to go back - you can walk backwards, and the formation will remain intact.

[Sardaukar One]

Ok, Sardaukar one - I'm going to say this for the very last time.

Another last time? Did you say last time you weren't going to say for the last time? Or was it the last time before the last time?

This is me trying to humor things out!

Do not comment on my messages if you are not at all serious, but only intending to twist my words. Ok, Sardaukar one - I'm going to say this for the very last time. Do not comment on my messages if you are not at all serious, but only intending to twist my words. Congratulations: you have deliberately and completely failed to understand their content. It is common courtesy to actually read someone's message before commenting on them.

Twisting your words? I'm afraid you are doing all that on your own.
Example : you originally stated that the Greeks, despite losing, inflicted heavy casualties on the Macedonians because they were not the veterans of the Persian wars. It was then pointed out to you that that wasn't the case, that the army had been marching and fighting almost every year for the last 20 years or so under Philip. You did a volte face. Now the Macedonians were veterans.
I'd add that we didn't need to quote the sources for this now did we?
Especially not in light of what this army did to the Persians a few years later.

You once claimed that you did believe the Macedonians performed a feint, just that the feinting troops weren't pikemen.

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.

The only problem here is that the only Macedonian troops in the vicinity, were in fact pikemen. I'd add that two examples have been provided of the Macedonian pikemen performing such a move, one at Gaugamela, and the other being the Silver Shields at Gabiene, courtesy of Messiah. I'd actually forgotted about that one.
You have seemed to have chosen to ignore this.

You say that we have to rely on the sources. Yet you stated in one post that the sources can be wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised if the sources had got something wrong.

So even though we know its wrong, we have to prove it wrong? Thats nonsensical!

You have done some flip flopping to be quite frank. And part of the problem is that its not that clear what you are trying to say here. Especially in light of your prior positions.

Didn't you once comment that you were no expert on Macedonian warfare? You seem to be pretty sure of how Chaeronea played out!

All of this adds up to making it frustrating to have a discussion with you on this subject.

My last post wasn't trying to have a go at you. Neither is this one, though it certainly may seem as such.
I'd add that sometimes I do come over as abrasive and aggresive. Even rude. Though thats rarely my intention.
But you do seem to think that if I don't agree with you, that I must therefore be trying to rip you. I'm actually asking you to explain your points. That you have not done is so is about the only thing irritating about this.
It would be nice if you did explain your points clearly.

[Sardaukar One]

You don't need to turn around to go back - you can walk backwards, and the formation will remain intact.

The more I think about it, I think that must have been how Philip did it at Chaeronea. You and Messiah are right about them just backing up.
I think turning around might have made it a tad bit obvious what they were trying to do, even for the Athenians.

@ Messiah

I know you know your stuff on Philip and the Diadochi. Good catch on the Silver Shields at Gabiene.
That slipped my mind.


Best James Bonds

1) Sean Connery - Simply the best ; Spectre did get kinda boring movie after movie.

2) Roger Moore - Right behind Connery; I thought he had the best movies.

3) Timothy Dalton - I really liked his second movie.

4) Pierce Brosnan - Great Bond, but terrible movies. So bad.

[messiah]

I actually was trying to be sarcastic on that "You insult me" think, but lacked the smiley face for it.

And I have to agree, Sean Connery is the best James Bond. Pure classic and pure awesome.

[Sardaukar One]

I actually was trying to be sarcastic on that "You insult me" think, but lacked the smiley face for it.

Really? I never would have caught on otherwise.

[Boom S]

roger moore at #2 ? meh !

I like this craig fellow more than brosnan btw.

[Quinn Inuit]

Everyone, stay civil. Don't make me introduce Parliamentary debating protocols around here.

btw, Connery rules.

[Sardaukar One]

Before I get accused of being uber aggressive, I was actually kidding around with Messiah.

Messiah said I didn't get him being sarcastic, so I was being sarcastic myself with the comment.
You know, being sarcastic when I was being accused of not getting the sarcasim.
Its being funny. Or trying to be.
I won't put words in his mouth, but I think he got it.

I liked Craig in Monte Casino, but I really didn't like this last movie.
Apparently the Bond franchise is done for. At least for the forseeable future.

[Mogan]

Being sarcastic on the internet is impossible, advise caution.

I think cavalry in ExRm are fairly realistic. They perform on level with infantry in prolonged close quarter combat unless they fight unarmored troops, and their charge (plus 'scare infantry' trait) is their only real advantage, which is approved by historical sources.

[Carados]

Before this degenerates into a name calling session (thats for little boys at high school, sorry CC ).

Sardauker One isn't being malicious, he's always been like that.

However, because I'm diplomatic and everyones friend and want the forum to be as friendly and informative as possible... your posts very often read as being aggressive. Normally, this isn't a problem because it just happens once in a while - but there has been a fair bit of discussion lately, and that has excaberated the problem. In this thread, it wasn't messiah but Alkidas who took things the wrong way. The regulars are usually ok about it because everyone has gotten used to one another, but not everyone is a regular. Also, people do react very differently to certain things.

Ok, Sardaukar one - I'm going to say this for the very last time.

Another last time? Did you say last time you weren't going to say for the last time? Or was it the last time before the last time?

This is me trying to humor things out!

For you, this might be a valid attempt at humour and fair play to you. However, there will be a number of people who don't see it as humour. It's like peoples favourite comedians, for some their favourite comedians use a lot of dark humour. For others, they prefer people who make a complete tit out of themselves. Some prefer sarcastic humour.

Also, have you ever heard of the saying "it's not what you said, but how you said it"? That applies a lot to the internet. Unfortunately it isn't possible to attach a light hearted tone of voice on to what you've just typed. The best we've got are emoticons.

Therefore, to ensure that everyone continues to love each here, I would suggest you adapt who you are to the people here - old and new. That's not to say you shouldn't challenge other peoples interpretation, but that you should be aware that the post you're commenting on is actually from another person and that this person is almost certainly going to be completely different to yourself.


And because I disciminate equally...
I would ask everyone else not to reply back in kind because that just risks a fight breaking out. Politely point out his errors, state your interpretation of the situation and then get back to the discussion.

??

[Sardaukar One]

Sardauker One isn't being malicious, he's always been like that.

Only some of the time. When i'm not being like that, i'm just your regular, run of the mill hole!