[καί]c οἳ δ’ ἄρ’ ἴσαν σιγῇ μένεα πνείοντες Ἀχαιοί, ἐν θυμῷ μεμαῶτες ἀλεξέμεν [ἀλλήλοισιν].d
τῶν δὲ [βαρβάρων]e τὴν ἀκοσμίαν ὄρνισιν [ἀπεικάζεν]f εἰπών.
τῶν δ’ ὥστ’ ὀρνίθων πετεηνῶν ἔθνεα πολλά, χηνῶν ἢ γεράνων ἢ κύκνων δουλιχοδείρων, Ἀσίῳ ἐν λειμῶνι Καϋστρίου ἀμφὶ ῥέεθρα [ἔνθα καὶ πετόονται]g ἀγαλλόμεναι [πτερύγεσσιν],h κλαγγηδὸν προκαθιζόντων, σμαραγεῖ δέ τε λειμών.
[καί]i ῶς Τρώων ἀλαλητὸς ἀνὰ στρατὸν εὐρὺν ὀρώρει, οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἦεν ὁμὸς θρόος [οὐδ’ ἴα γῆρυς].j
καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις.
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κόσμηθεν ἅμ’ ἡγε μόνεσσιν ἕκαστοι, Τρῶες μὲν κλαγγῇ [ἐνοπῇ τ’ ἴσαν],k ὄρνιθες ὥς.
[καί]l οἳ δ’ ἄρ’ ἴσαν σιγῇ μένεα [πνείοντες]m Ἀχαιοί, ἐν θυμῷ μεμαῶτες ἀλε ξέμεν ἀλλήλοισιν.
52. On silence and attention1
It is absolutely necessary to preserve silence so that the word of command can be distinctly heard and promptly obeyed. Thus we read in Homer:
So then, rank after rank, the Dannan battalions moved in a ceaseless advance to war. Each of the commanders gave orders to his men, and the rest of the army moved in silence; and you would not think that so many men, with voices in their chests, were marching behind them, as they went silently, out of fear of their commanders.2
And elsewhere: ‘The Achaeans came on in silence, breathing boldness, their minds set on supporting each other.’3 However, Homer likens the noise of the barbarians, when under arms, to the clamour of birds:
Like great flocks of flying birds, geese or cranes or long-necked swans in an Asian water meadow by the streams of Kaystrios, which wheel this way and that in their wing’s glory, and the meadow echoes their cries as they settle in uproar.4
And again:
But the Trojans … so a clamour rose throughout the breadth of the army since there was no common speech or single language shared by all, but a mix of tongues and men from many different lands.5
And again elsewhere:
When the divisions on both sides had been marshalled under their commanders, the Trojans came on with cries and shouting like birds, like when the cries of cranes fill the sky.6
And: ‘The Achaeans came on in silence, breathing boldness, their minds set on supporting each other.’7
νγ’ Περὶ τῶν παραγγελμάτων
Ἄγε εἰς τὰ ὅπλα. παράστητε παρὰ τὰ ὅπλα. ὁ σκευοφόρος ἀποχωρείτω τῆς φάλαγγος.
[εἶτα καὶ προσεχέτω]a τῷ [παραγγελλομένῳ].b ὑπόλαβε, ἀνάλαβε. διάστηθι. ἄνω τὸ [δόρυ].c στοίχει, ζύγει, παρόρα ἐπὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον. τὸν ἴδιον λόχον ὁ [ἀρχηγὸς ἀπευθυνέται].d συντήρει τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς διαστήματα. ἐπὶ δόρυ κλῖνον, πρόαγε, ἔχου οὕτως, [εἰς ὀρθὸν ἀπόδος. ἐπ’ ἀσπίδα κλῖνον, πρόαγε, ἔχου οὕτως. ἐπὶ δόρυ μεταβαλοῦ, πρόαγε, ἔχου οὕτως].e [ἐπ’ ἀσπίδα μεταβαλοῦ, πρόαγε, ἔχου οὕτως.]f τὸ βάθος διπλασίαζε, ἀποκατάστησον. [τὸ μῆκος διπλασίαζε, ἀποκατάστησον.]g τὸν Λάκωνα ἐξέλισσε, ἀποκατάστησον. τὸν Μακεδόνα ἐξέλισσε, ἀποκατάστησον. τὸν χόριον ἐξέλισσε, ἀποκατάστησον. ἐπὶ δόρυ ἐπίστρεφε, ἀποκατάστησον. ἐπὶ δόρυ περίσπα, ἀποκατάστησον. [ἐπὶ δόρυ ἐκπερίσπα, ἀποκατάστησον. ἐπ’ ἀσπίδα ἐκπερίσπα, ἀποκατάστησον.]h
[Αὗταί]i σοι [περὶ]j τοῦ τακτικοῦ [ἀθηγήσεις]k ἐλέχθησαν, σωτηρίαν τοῖς χρωμένοις αὐταῖς πορίζουσαι καὶ τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἧτταν ἐπάγουσαι.
53. Various words of command1
To arms! [age eis ta hopla] Stand to your arms! [parastēthi epi ta hopla] Remove the baggage! [ho skeuophoros apochōreitō tēs phalaggos]
And again: Attention! [proseche] Fall in! [hupolabe] fall out! [analabe] Mark distances! [diastēthi] Raise pikes! [anō ta doru] Dress files! [stoichei] Dress ranks! [zugei] eyes front! [parore epi ton hegoumenon] leaders, order your files! [ton idion lochon ho archēgos apeuthunetai] Take the first distance! [syntērei ta ex archēs diastēmata] To the pike, face! [epi doru klinai] March! [proaye] halt! [echetō] The depth, double! [to bathos diplasiaze] As you were! [apokatastēson] The width, double! [to mēkos diplasiaze] As you were! [apokatastēson] lacedaemonian, Counter-march! [ton Lakaōna exelisse] As you were! [apokatastēson] Macedonian, Counter-march! [ton Makedona exelisse] As you were! [apokatastēson] Choral Counter-march! [ton chorion exelisse] As you were! [apokatastēson] To the pike, face! [epi doru klinai] As you were! [apokatastēson] To the pike, wheel! [epi doru epistrophe] As you were! [apokatastēson]
I have thus offered to you such tactical precepts as will ensure the safety of those who observe them and will bring destruction upon their enemies.
Notes
Preface
1. T.F. Dibdin, An Introduction to the Knowledge of Rare and Valuable Editions of the Greek and Latin Classics (London: W. Dwyer, 1804), pp. 4–5. A good example of this combining of the two authors is the fact that Arcerius’ 1613 edition is attributed to Claudius Aelianus, the writer who lived about 100 years after the book was written.
2. Dibdin, op. cit., p. 5.
3. For discussions about the authorship of the works of Aelian, Arrian, Asclepiodotus and Poseidonius, and their possible use of each other’s works as sources, see: W.A. Oldfather, ‘Notes on the Text of Asklepiodotos’, The American Journal of Philology 41.2 (1920), pp. 127–146; O.L. Spaulding, ‘The Ancient Military Writers’, The Classical Journal 28.9 (1933), pp. 657–669, at 665; P.A. Stadter, ‘The Ars Tactica of Arrian: Tradition and Originality’, Classical Philology 73.2 (1978), pp. 117–128; A.M. Devine, ‘Aelian’s Manual of Hellenistic Military Tactics. A New Translation from the Greek with an Introduction’, Ancient World 19.1–2 (1989), pp. 31–64, at 32–33.
4. Dibdin, op. cit., p. 5.
5. For example, some of the illustrations in the 17th century texts show commanders in front of their respective units (i.e. not as part of the file(s) that make up their respective units). This makes no tactical sense in regards to a massed pike formation as it does not give the unit an even frontage. It is more likely that the officers were part of the file and the images in this edition have been altered from the 17th century ones accordingly. Additionally, the 17th century illustrations depict the men wielding their weapons as the 17th century pikeman did (at shoulder height). It is unlikely that the Hellenistic pike was carried in this way for battle, but rather it was wielded at waist level so that the shield, which was carried on the left forearm by a central armband, could be placed in a protective position across the bearer’s front. As such, these pictures have also been altered accordingly.
Introduction
a. This dedication to Hadrian appears in Robertello’s 1552 edition and Arcerius’ 1613 edition. It is then carried into Bingham’s 1616 edition and Augustus’ 1814 edition. Interestingly, the Köchly and Rüstow 1885 edition has an alternate version of the text where the work is dedicated to Trajan (αὐτόκρατορ Καῖσαρ υἱὲ θεοῦ Τραϊανὲ σεβαστέ). This was then carried through to Devine’s 1989 edition of the text. In his preface, Aelian
states that the work was initially begun under Trajan (whom he calls Nerva), but it was then completed for Hadrian; see note 2.
b. Arc 1613 =ἐβουλήθην.
c. Arc 1613 = συγγράμμασι.
d. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
e. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
f. Arc 1613 and K&R 1855 = ἀπημαυρωμένον.
g. K&R 1855 = τάχα.
h. K&R 1855 = ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρός σου Νέρουας.
i. K&R 1855 = ἐπισήμῳ ὑπατικῷ.
j. K&R 1855 = ἀπενεγκαμένῳ.
k. K&R 1855 = ἐσπουδάσθαι.
l. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
m. K&R 1855 = ἔχων.
n. K&R 1855 = τελειῶσαι.
o. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
p. K&R 1855 = ἕνεκα.
q. Arc 1613 = βεβαιούμενος.
r. K&R 1855 = καὶ τοῦ.
s. Arc 1613 = ἡμᾶς.
t. K&R 1855 = ἂν ταῖς σαῖς ἐπινοίαις αὐτὰ.
u. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
v. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
w. Rob 1552 = κατανοήσεῖς.
x. K&R 1855 = ἐπιζητήσῃς.
y. K&R 1855 = ῥᾳδίως.
1. For the organization of troops outlined by Homer, see Chapter 1. ‘Mathematics’ here refers to the art of learning rather than simple numeracy skill.
2. The emperor Nerva who is mentioned here is not Marcus Cocceius Nerva, who succeeded the emperor Domitian and reigned from AD 96–98. Rather it is a reference to Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus (i.e. Trajan), who ruled from AD 98–117 and who was also called Nerva because he had been adopted by Nerva Cocceius and later succeeded him. The confusion over these names may be the source of the passage in Köchly and Rüstow’s 1885 edition, based upon the dedication in the Codex Laurentianus graecus 55.4, which must assume that the Nerva who is mentioned here was the emperor from AD 96–98 and that the work was subsequently completed under, and dedicated to, the succeeding emperor, Trajan. A.M. Devine (Ancient World 19.1–2, 1989, p. 31) suggests that the use of the plural in Aelian’s reference to the emperor being a general in many great ‘wars’ in the preface is an allusion to the two Dacian Wars fought by Trajan and thus dates the dedication of the text to Trajan post AD 106. However, this ignored the editions of the text that state that the work was completed under Hadrian (who also undertook several military campaigns from Britain to the Near East). In these editions, Aelian describes Trajan as Hadrian’s father; indeed Hadrian claimed that he was Trajan’s son by adoption (HA 3.5–4.10). However, Cassius Dio (69.1–4) plainly denies this and the Historia Augusta (4.1) says that some reported that he was adopted through a ruse of Plotina (Trajan’s wife) who ‘substituted someone with a faint voice pretending to be Trajan on his deathbed, who formally adopted Hadrian, despite the fact that Trajan had already departed this world at that time’. However, Hadrian had become a ward of Trajan and of another Roman noble at the time his father had died when he was ten years old (HA 1.6) and so was clearly able to claim the status of a son of Trajan. The figure Frontinus that Aelian mentions is the same person who wrote a book on stratagems that is still extant. Vegetius (Mil. 2.3) reports that Frontinus was held in high esteem by Trajan. Tacitus (Ag. 17) also mentions a Frontinus who suppressed the Silures of Britain during the reign of Vespasian. Pliny the Younger calls Frontinus one of the most respected citizens of his day (Ep. 4.8.3, 5.1.5) and states that he succeeded Frontinus to the priesthood when he died in AD 103. In the next chapter of his work, Aelian calls this person Fronto (now corrected). There is a Fronto who was consul in the third year of the reign of Nerva, as is mentioned by Cassius Dio (68.3). However, this person’s full name is Marcus Cornelius Fronto while the strategist mentioned by Aelian is Julius Frontinus and so cannot be the same person. Thus Aelian had to have met Frontinus some time prior to his death (most likely during the early years of the reign of Trajan), began researching and writing his work on tactics, abandoned it, and then took it up again and dedicated it to the new emperor Hadrian, when it was completed. Clearly the surviving manuscripts of Aelian’s Tactics contain two different dedications. As such, it is possible that what is contained within the various editions of Aelian’s Tactics in collections and publications around the world are two completely different manuscript traditions. The first of these, based upon the earlier Codex Laurentianus graecus 55.4 and dedicated to Trajan, but with much of the text of the later editions missing, a table of summary points rather than a concise index, and varying combined or differently ordered chapters, seems to represent the original (and incomplete) draft of the work which, as Aelian states in his preface, was begun under Trajan but was then abandoned. This would explain the seemingly incomplete nature of the text and its dedication to Trajan as preserved in the Codex Laurentianus and passed on through later editions based upon it such as those of Köchly and Rüstow in 1855 and Devine in 1989. The other versions of the Tactics, presenting a much more complete version of the text, often separated into their individual chapters and with an accompanying index, but dedicated to Hadrian, seem to preserve the version of the text that was completed by Aelian after he had taken the project back up again. As the emperor had changed by the time this had occurred, the dedication of the work had to be altered from presenting the text to Trajan to presenting it to Hadrian. However, what seems to have only been changed was the actual name of the emperor to whom the work was dedicated, while the rest of the original dedication was left intact. The fact that Aelian dedicated the work to a militarily successful commander raises the possibility that the reference to ‘great wars’ may be a hold-over from the original dedication written when the work was begun under Trajan (which would then correlate with Devine’s reckoning) and that little of the language was changed when it was subsequently dedicated to Hadrian. However, because of the dual usage of the name Nerva by both the emperor of that name and his successor Trajan, and the military successes of both Trajan and Hadrian, the wording of the rest of the dedication (referring to ‘Nerva’ being the father of the emperor to whom the work was dedicated) still worked for a dedication to Hadrian and so did not really need to be altered any further. Whether Aelian consciously considered this, or whether he merely changed the name of who the work was dedicated to in the final draft, will probably never be known.
3. As such, we get a direct declaration by Aelian that what he is presenting to Hadrian is, at least in his view, the art of war as it was practised by Alexander the Great at the start of the Hellenistic period (350–168 BC).
Chapter 1
a. Arc 1613 = δὲ.
b. K&R 1855 = Μενεσθέα.
c. Rob 1552 = οὔ τις; K&R 1855 = οὔπω τις.
d. K&R 1855 = ἀνδρὶ ὑπατικῷ.
e. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
f. K&R 1855 = ἱκανὰ.
g. Rob 1552 = ἐποίητε.
h. K&R 1855 = συνέταξε.
i. K&R 1855 = πρῶτον.
j. K&R 1855 = ψνώσεως.
k. K&R 1855 = ὑπολαμβάνοντες.
l. K&R 1855 = ἡμῶν.
m. K&R 1855 = ἄλλους.
n. K&R 1855 = ἐξασθενήσῃ ἐναργῶς παραστῆσαί τι.
o. K&R 1855 = σχημάτων.
p. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
q. K&R 1855 = παράσχω.
r. Arc 1613 = ὀνόμασιν.
s. K&R 1855 = αὐτῶν.
t. Arc 1613 = ὀνομάτσι.
u. K&R 1855 = ὅταν ἐκείνοις.
v. K&R 1855 = κατανοήσειν.
w. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
x. Arc 1613 = αἰεὶ.
1. See also Arr., Tact. 1.
2. H
om., Il. 2.555–557.
3. Unfortunately, the work of Stratocles is no longer extant. Frontinus’ work on stratagems survives, but a specific work on tactics does not.
4. Aeneas is mentioned by Polybius (10.44.1–13) where he discusses the signals that can be made by a fire-beacon in the case of an enemy attack. This work on ‘How to Withstand a Siege’ by Aeneas is still extant. However, a specific book on tactics or generalship (Polybius calls it ‘A Commentary on the Office of General’, and Aelian calls it “Book on the Office of a General”) has not survived. Cyneas is mentioned by Plutarch in his biography of Pyrrhus (Pyrr. 14) and by Cicero (Ad. Fam. 9.25.1).
5. The writings of Pyrrhus are mentioned by both Cicero (Ad. Fam. 9.25.1) and Plutarch (Pyrr. 8.2), and Pyrrhus was thought to have been one of the greatest generals of all time (Plut., Pyrr. 8). Pyrrhus had a son called Alexander (see Plut., Pyrrh. 1, 6, 9; Just., Epit. 18.1–3; Ath. 3.73) who is the one mentioned here. Alexander ruled Epirus after his father’s death. A reference to a book on tactics written by Alexander is found nowhere else other than in Aelian. According to Plutarch (Phil. 4.4), a work on tactics by Evangelus was one of the texts studied by the Achaean general Philopoemen. The Polybius mentioned by Aelian is the same whose history is, for the most part, still extant. A specific work of his on tactics has not survived. However, there are numerous passages scattered throughout his history that demonstrate a firm understanding of tactics and strategy. Iphicrates was a great Athenian commander and military reformer of the fourth century BC (see Nepos, Iphicrates 1.1–4; Arr., Anab. 2.15). Iphicrates’ father had been adopted by the grandfather of Alexander the Great (Aeschin., On the Legation 28) and Iphicrates’ military reforms may have had a strong influence on the development of the Macedonian way of war. Posidonius was a philosopher, scientist and strategist (see Cic., Tusc. 2.25.61; Plin., HN 7.30). He is credited with inventing a ‘sphere’, or orrery, a mechanical model that correctly calculated the motions of the planets in the 1st century BC (Cic., Nat. D. 88). His work on tactics may have been the source of the slightly later work by Asclepiodotus. Sadly few if any of these works survive, and little is known about the other authors or their works that are mentioned by Aelian.
The Tactics of Aelian Page 15