The Tactics of Aelian

by Christopher Matthew

  With the decline in the use of pike and musket armies in Europe, interest in Hellenistic military manuals also witnessed a down-turn in popularity. In 1757, a parallel French/Greek edition of the Tactics, called La milice des Grecs, was compiled by M. Bouchaud de Bussy and published by C.A. Jombert in Paris. It was not until 1814 that a new English edition was edited by Henry Augustus, drawing upon several earlier editions and commenting on some of the discrepancies within them (reprints of this edition, released through E. Kerby in London, are still available, albeit with some of the illustrations missing, doubled up or cut off). The year 1855 saw the release of an edition of Aelian’s Tactics, coupled with the Tactica of Asclepiodotus and based upon the Codex Laurentianus graecus 55.4, by Köchly and Rüstow through Engelmann in Leipzig, although chapters 36–49 are missing from this work (due to them not being present in the Codex Laurentianus) and chapters 30 and 35 differ considerably from other Greek editions of the text.

  In 1968, a reworked and combined version of the two editions compiled by Bingham in the seventeenth century was released by De Capo Press in New York. This edition combined the different notes that accompanied the two versions of Bingham’s text (the 1616 edition only had notes attached to chapters 1–29). In a volume of the The Ancient World released in 1989, A.M. Devine presented another translation of the text in English based upon the Codex Laurentianus graecus 55.4 (see A.M. Devine, ‘Aelian’s Manual of Hellenistic Military Tactics: A New Translation from the Greek with an Introduction’, AncW 19.1–2, 1989, pp. 31–64). This was the last time a readily accessible edition of Aelian’s masterwork on tactics and strategy was released, until now.

  This new edition draws upon several of the earlier versions of the text (including Robertello’s 1552 “best edition”, the 1613 Arcerius edition, Bingham’s 1616 edition, Augustus’ 1814 edition, and the 1855 Köchly and Rüstow edition) to bring Aelian’s Tactics to the modern reader. The English of the earlier editions has been converted into more modern vernacular to make the concepts contained within the passages more easily understood. Consequently, while still adhering to the flavour of both the Greek and the earlier editions, the text of this new edition has been reworked, in terms of both the punctuation and the sentence structure, to make the passages flow in a more readable format. This means that, in many places, extra words have been inserted into the text or that the translation may not totally adhere to the tense and structure of the ancient Greek. For example, Bingham’s translation, following the style of the time, appears exceptionally long-winded to the modern reader; with an abundance of subordinate clauses, which could have, if followed precisely, made a single sentence go for more than half a page in some places. To make such literary constructs, and subsequently the concepts contained therein, easier to comprehend, such sentences have been broken into a number of individual clauses. Doing so has required the insertion of additional words, terms and phrases, into these translated sentences so that they follow proper grammar and syntax. However, while this means that the translated passages may not exactly adhere to the original Greek of the various editions used as source material, in doing so, the utmost care has been taken to ensure that the essence of the passage has not been lost. All of the key terms found throughout the text have also been given in both their Greek and Anglicized forms so that a reader will not be inhibited by the lack of a working knowledge of the classical languages.

  Translating, for lack of a better term, a work from Medieval to Classical Greek, and from 17th and 19th century English into modern English, has presented its own set of unique challenges. Not only does the Medieval Greek utilize different characters from both Classical and modern Greek (and even from each other in the 1552 and 1613 editions), but the basic printing techniques used to produce the early editions of the Tactics has left some parts difficult to read due to faint text, while in other areas the text, particularly in regards to the accents and punctuation (which also differ between the 1552 and 1613 editions), is blurred due to a running of the ink (see Figure 1). This has resulted in many words appearing to be misspelt (although it is often hard to distinguish these errors due to the blurred or faint nature of the text). Comparing several different editions of the text has allowed for some of the discrepancies between the various editions of the work to be identified (although, due to the differences in the editions, no one version is more correct than another). Notes accompanying each chapter outline some of these identified differences and will also provide additional information that will aid the reader in coming to terms with the various technical and historical aspects of the work. Some diagrams not found in the earlier texts are also included in the notes to help explain more complex military issues (for example, see the notes for chapters 10 and 31).

  Even the basic layout of Aelian’s work differs amongst the various earlier editions. For example, in Bingham’s 1616 edition, the Köchly and Rüstow 1855 edition, and in Devine’s 1989 version, the text of chapter 22 in this new edition is broken into two separate parts. This is no doubt due to the separation of these sections in the Codex Laurentianus graecus 55.4, which was used as a source. However, the 1613 Arcerius and 1814 Augustus editions, which have used other manuscripts as their source, have these two sections combined. This current version follows the Arcerius/Augustus format by combining these two sections into a single chapter. Similarly, chapter 24 is broken into two parts in Bingham’s 1616 edition, but the two are combined in this version as per the Arcerius/Augustus examples. Furthermore, Bingham’s 1616 edition merges chapters 26 and 27 together, but in this new edition they have been left separate, also as per the Arcerius and Augustus editions. Finally, in Bingham’s 1616 edition, chapters 37 and 38 are placed in the opposite order to how they appear in the Arcerius and Augustus editions. This version, again, follows the format set out by Arcerius and Augustus.

  Figure 1: Examples of Chapter 6 of Aelian’s Tactics from Robertello’s 1552 edition (top) and Arcerius’ 1613 edition (bottom).

  Another difference between the editions concerns the selection of chapters. Köchly and Rüstow’s 1855 edition, for example, does not contain chapters 36 or 37 as they appear in other editions. Instead, the gist of these two chapters is summarized, along with parts of other chapters, within a different version of chapter 35. Similarly, the 1855 editon does not contain chapters 40–48, but summarizes their content within chapters 38 and 39, or omits it entirely. In some places, whole sections of a particular chapter are found in one or more editions, but not in others. Robertello’s 1552 edition, for example, contains an additional paragraph at the end of chapter 48 that is found in no other edition.

  A further problem is the table of contents for Aelian’s work. Both Bingham’s 1616 edition and Augustus’ 1814 edition contain an arbitrary table of contents (in English) for the ease of defining and finding the relevant sections of the work. Arcerius’ 1613 edition also contains a table of contents in both Greek and Latin but differs in its terminology from the later English editions. This table of contents is absent from Robertello’s 1552 edition, no doubt due to the work being presented in a single monologue rather than in separate chapters. Additionally, the Köchly and Rüstow 1855 edition and the Devine 1989 edition do not contain a basic table of contents, but summarize the contents into a list of 113 separate points that, unfortunately, do not fully cover the contents for many of the last chapters of the book, which are absent from the text. This use of summarized points in the 1855/1989 editions is no doubt due to the source material used for the editions separating the Tactics into only forty-two chapters (with chapters 36–49 either missing or different from other versions) whereas the 1613 and 1814 editions have the work separated into fifty-four and fifty-three chapters respectively. Consequently, for this new edition, a basic table of contents, following the examples set out by Bingham and Augustus, has been provided. The wording of this table of contents has been based, in part, upon Arcerius’ 1613 edition and the summary points found at the beginning of the 1855/1989 editions.
/>
  Another problem with the various editions is that, in some cases, the tenses and spelling of some words, or even the whole word itself, differs. In this new edition, when such a thing has been encountered during the translation and editing of the text, the most commonly used form of the word across all of the editions examined is incorporated into the text while notes accompanying the passage will outline the less common differences and the editions in which they are found. As such, this new edition of the Tactics can be regarded as something of a hybrid, incorporating elements from several different versions of the text to create a whole (yet original) version of the work.

  Lastly, some of the illustrations that accompanied earlier editions of the text have been completely redrawn. Some images, such as those that accompanied chapter 49, seem quite superfluous as the text of the chapter is relatively clear, so these images have been left out of this edition. Furthermore, in many of the 16th and 17th century manuscripts, the figures used to demonstrate the various formations and manoeuvres undertaken by the Hellenistic phalanx were drawn as contemporary 16th or 17th century pikemen, or were simply represented as small dots or letters. Additionally, in some instances, the illustrations in the earlier editions do not correlate with the text that they accompany.5 These images have been redrawn with basically rendered representations of the Hellenistic men-at-arms of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC and composed in a way that will (hopefully) make the concepts being portrayed easier to understand and correlate more closely with the text, just as Aelian wanted.

  Αἰλιανός Τακτικός

  (Aelianus Tacticus)

  Περί Στρατηγικών Τάξεων Ἑλληνικών

  (On the Military Arrangements of the Greeks)

  Προοίμιον

  Τὴν παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι τακτικὴν θεωρίαν ἀπὸ τῶν Ὁμήρου χρόνων τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσαν, αὐτόκρατορ Καῖσαρ υἱὲ θεοῦ [Ἀδριανε]a σεβαστέ, πολλοὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν συνέγραψαν οὐκ ἔχοντες, ἣν ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν ἐπιστεύθημεν ἕξιν ἔχειν. ἐμαυτὸν δὲ πείθων [ἠβουλήθην]b ταύτην συντάξαι τὴν θεωρίαν, ὅτι τοῖς ἡμετέροις οἱ μεθ’ ἡμᾶς πρὸ τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων προσέξουσι [συγγράμμασιν]c. Τῆς δὲ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις [περὶ]d τὸ μέρος τοῦτο δυνάμεως καὶ ἐμπειρίας οὐκ ἔχων γνῶσιν – δεῖ γὰρ ὁμολογεῖν τἀληθῆ – ὄκνῳ κατειχόμην περὶ [τὸ]e συγγράφειν καὶ παραδιδόναι τὸ μάθημα τοῦτο, ὡς [ἀπημαυρωμένων]f καὶ [πὰλαι]g μηδὲν ἔτι χρήσιμον τῷ βίῳ μετὰ τὴν ἐφευρεθεῖσαν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν διδασκαλίαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ [τῷ θεῷ πατρίσου Νέρουα συμβαλῶν]h παρὰ Φροτίνῳ τῷ [ἐπισήμων ὑπατικῶν]i ἐν Φορμίαις ἡμέρας τινὰς διέτριψα δόξαν [ἐπενεγκαμένῳ]j περὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις ἐμπειρίαν. συμβαλών τ’ ἀνδρὶ, εὗρον οὐκ ἐλάττονα σπουδὴν ἔχοντα εἰς τὴν παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησι τεθεωρημένην μάθησιν, ἠρξάμην οὐκέτι περιφρονεῖν τῆς τῶν τακτικῶν συγγραφῆς, οὐκ ἂν [απουδάζεσθαι]k παρὰ Φροντίνῳ δοκῶν αὐτήν, εἴπερ τι χεῖρον ἐδόκει τῆς Ῥωμαϊκῆς διατάξεως περιέχειν [ἀυτήν].l

  Πεποιηκὼς οὖν πώποτε συγγράμματος διατύπωσιν, μήπω δὲ πρὸς ἔκδοσιν ἑτοίμην [εἶναι].m διὰ τὴν σὴν ἀνυπέρβλητον, αὐτόκρατορ, ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ ἐμπειρίαν, δι’ ὧν πάντας ἀπλῶς τοὺς ποτὲ γενομένους κατὰ πόλεμον στρατηγοὺς ὑπερβάλλεις, παρωρμήθην [τελεῖν]n τὴν πραγματείαν καλὴν σφόδρα. καὶ τοῖς ἐσπουδακόσι περὶ ταύτην τὴν θεωρίαν παραγκωνίσασθαι δυναμένην τὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων συντάγματα. σαφηνείας [τε]o γὰρ [ἕνεκεν]p [διαβεβαιούμενος]q λέγω τοὺς ἐντευξομένους τῇδε τῇ συγγραφῇ ἔνθεν μᾶλλον ἢ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων στοιχειωθήσεσθαι. [διὰ τὸ]r κατὰ τάξιν ἕκαστα δεδηλῶσθαι. οὐκ ἐθάρσησα μέντοι πέμψαι σοι τὸ σύγγραμμα τηλικούτων πολέμων στρατηγῷ, μή πως εὐτελέστερα φανῇ τὰ δι’ [ἡμῶν]s ὑφηγούμενα, [ἂν δὲ ταῖς ἐπινοίαις σοῦ ταὐτὰ]t παραβάλῃς. [ἐὰν δὲ]u ὡς Ἑλληνικὴν θεωρίαν [καὶ γλαφυρὰν ἱστορίαν],v ἐν ᾗ καὶ τοῦ Μακεδόνος Ἀλεξάνδρου τὴν ἐν ταῖς παρατάξεσιν ἐπιβολὴν θεωρήσεις, ψυχαγωγίαν παρέξει σοι τὸ σύγγραμμα.

  Διὰ μέντοι τὰς ἀσχολίας προέγραψα τὰ κεφάλαια τῶν ἀποδεικνυμένων, ἵνα πρὸ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως τοῦ βιβλίου, τὸ ἐπάγγελμα τοῦ συγγράμματος δι’ ὀλίγων [κατανοήσῃς]w καὶ οὓς ἂν [ἐπιζητήσεῖς]x ἀναγνωσθῆναι τόπους [ῥαδίως]y εὑρίσκων τοὺς χρόνους μὴ τρίβῃς.

  Introduction

  The Greek art of organizing an army, Emperor Caesar Augustus Hadrian, son of a god, the antiquity of which reaches back to the age in which Homer lived, has been committed to writing by many whose skill in ‘mathematics’ was not reputed to have been equal to mine.1 As such, I was forced to think it possible for me to comment on these matters and that posterity should regard and esteem my labour rather than that of those who have handled the same arguments before me. However, by weighing again my own ignorance (for I must confess a truth) in that skill and practice of arms that is so esteemed among the Romans, I withheld from fear of reviving a science half dead, as it were, and, since the invention of another by your ancestors, altogether out of request and unregarded. During my coming to Formiae to do my duty for the emperor Nerva – your majesty’s father – it was my fortune to spend some time with Frontinus, a man of consular dignity and of great reputation due to his experience in military affairs.2 Conferring with him I perceived, and he imparted, no less an importance of the Greek discipline of arms than the Roman, and I began to view the Greek manner in a more positive light – considering that Frontinus would not have discussed it had he thought it inferior to the Roman way.

  Therefore, having framed a project for this work in the past, yet not daring to publish it in light of your Majesty’s incomparable valour and experience – which make you famous above all generals that ever were, without exception – I have of late taken it again in hand and finished it; being (if I do say so myself) a work both worthy to be associated with, and of sufficiency, especially for those who are studious of the art, to obscure the credit of the ancient tacticians. For in respect of their works I do boldly dare to affirm that the reader shall find more advantages in this little book than in all their writings due to the order and method I have followed. However, I do reservedly offer it to your Majesty, who has been General of so many great wars, lest it prove to be too slender a present and altogether unworthy of your favoured view. And yet, if your Majesty shall be pleased to think of it as a Greek ‘theorem’ or some other discourse, it will give you some small delight because you will find, contained within, Alexander of Macedon’s manner of marshalling his army.3

  Additionally, as I am not ignorant of your Majesty’s more weighty affairs, I have separated the work in
to chapters. As such, you may flick to the end without reading the rest of the book, should you wish to, and find the passages you desire to peruse without loss of time.

  Κεφάλαια τοῦ βιβλίου

  α’ Περὶ τῶν τὰ τακτικὰ συνταξάντων.

  β’ Ὅτι τοῦ μαχομένου γένους ἐννέα διαφοραί· ὁπλιτῶν, πελταστῶν, ψιλῶν, ἱππέων δορατοφόρων, ἱππέων ἀκοντιστῶν, ἱππέων τοξοτῶν, ἱππέων καταφράκτων, ἁρμάτων, ἐλεφάντων.

  γ’ Πῶς οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ὡρίσαντο τὴν τακτικὴν τέχνην.

  δ’ Τί ἐστι λόχος καὶ τί καταλοχισμὸς.

  ε’ Πόσων ἀνδρῶν οἱ ἀρχαῖοι τοὺς λόχους ἔταξαν, καὶ ποῖος αὐτῶν ἀριθμὸς πρὸς παράταξιν ἐπιτήδειος.

  ς’ Τί ἐστι συλλοχισμός.

  ζ’ Τί ἐστι βάθος τῆς φάλαγγος. Τί ἐστι ζυγεῖν αὶ τί στοιχεῖν. Ὅτι κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον μετὰ τὴν τῶν ὁπλιτῶν φάλαγγα ὀπίσω τάσσεται τὸ τῶν ψιλῶν καὶ ἔτι τούτων ὀπίσω τὸ τῶν ἱππέων.