6. Pl., Leg. 1.626.
Chapter 2
a. Arc 1613 = δὲ.
b. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
c. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
d. K&R 1855 = δούλων.
e. Arc 1613 = ἐπακολουθοῦσι.
f. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
g. K&R 1855 = ἡ.
h. Arc 1613 = ἡ.
i. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
j. K&R 1855 = ἀπὸ ξύλου.
k. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
l. K&R 1855 = διασκευῇ.
m. K&R 1855 = σαρισῶν.
n. Arc 1613 = μεγέθη.
o. K&R 1855 = ἡ τούτων.
p. Arc 1613 = πλεῖστοι.
q. Arc 1613 = συντάττουσι.
r. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
s. K&R 1855 = εἴλαις.
t. K&R 1855 = δ’.
u. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
v. K&R 1855 = αὐτὸ.
w. Arc 1613 = ξηστοφόροι.
x. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
y. K&R 1855 = ἱππακοντισταὶ.
z. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
aa. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
ab. K&R 1855 = ἃ ἅπαξ ποτὲ.
ac. K&R 1855 = προειρημένοις.
ad. Arc 1613 = ἀκοντίζοντας.
ae. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 1.1–4; Arr., Tact. 2–4.
2. Aelian does not discuss naval matters in this work on tactics. Such a discussion may have formed part of another work. However, if it was ever written, it is now lost.
3. The hoplite shield (aspis) was around 90cm in diameter. The hoplite spear (doru) was about 255cm long.
4. The word argilos (ἀργίλος) means ‘white clay’. This may be a reference to the linen cuirass, or linothorax, a composite armour made from gluing several layers of cloth and/or hide together to create a material not unlike modern Kevlar. The finished cuirass had similar protective properties to a bronze plate cuirass but weighed slightly less (see Nepos, Iphicrates 1.4). Representations of the Hellenistic linen cuirass in tomb paintings show many of them to have had a base colour of white while others were brightly coloured (for example, see R. Post, ‘Alexandria’s Colourful Tombstones’, Ancient Warfare 1.1, 2007, pp. 38–43). It may be that the cuirass was finished with a thin layer of a clay-based whitewash (which would account for the name argilos) which some soldiers appear to have left unpainted, while others covered their armour with strong colours and intricate patterns and designs. Thus Aelian implies in this passage that the phalangites of the fourth century BC wore a lighter linen armour while the hoplites of the time still wore the traditional bronze panoply of a century earlier. Interestingly, Köchly and Rüstow’s 1855 edition of the Tactics replaces the word argilos with xulou (ξύλου), which means ‘made of wood’ (see note e). It is unlikely that the entire armour of the peltast/phalangite was made from this material. However, the so-called ‘cuirass of Philip’, found in a royal tomb at Vergina in Macedonia, was reinforced with metal plates. As such, it cannot be ruled out that sections of peltast/phalangite armour may have been similarly reinforced with wooden plates as this would account for the different terminology, although it does seem unlikely.
5. According to Asclepiodotus (5.1) the shield (peltē) carried by the Macedonian phalangite was ‘64cm in diameter and not too concave’. According to both Nepos (Iphicrates 1.4) and Diodorus (15.44.3), the Athenian military reformer Iphicrates created the forerunner of the Hellenistic phalangite around 374 BC. As part of his reforms, the large aspis was replaced with the smaller peltē, the size of the spear was doubled, and the armour was changed from bronze plate to linen so as to be less cumbersome. Consequently, troops that had once been referred to as ‘hoplites’ were now called ‘peltasts’ after the smaller shield that they now carried. This description closely correlates with Aelian’s description of the peltasts. The resultant pike (sarissa) carried by the Iphicratean peltast (who by the Hellenistic period was also called a ‘phalangite’: livy 37.40–42) would have been around 510cm (or about 11 cubits or 16 Greek feet) long, which is too large to have been wielded in one hand, and this explains the reduction in the size of the shield as it now freed the left hand to help wield the weapon (see Chapter 12 note 2). The size of the pike then varied in length throughout the Hellenistic period. At the time of Alexander the Great (the time Aelian says he is writing about) the weapon measured around 576cm (or 12 cubits) in length (see also Ascl., Tact. 5.1; Theoph., Caus. pl. 3.12; Arr., Tact. 12.7). As such, the weapon carried by the Iphicratean peltast was shorter than the pike carried by the Hellenistic phalangite which may be what Aelian is referring to here. It is important to note, however, that while the weapon of the peltast was shorter than the Macedonian pike, it was still twice the length of the spear carried by the hoplite.
6. The word ‘peltast’ has been, more often than not, used interchangeably with the terms ‘skirmisher’ or ‘light infantry’ by numerous scholars over the years. However, here Aelian clearly distinguishes between the light infantry/ skirmishers (the psiloi) and the peltasts, by which he must be referring to the Iphicratean peltasts or the forerunners of the Hellenistic phalangites.
7. The ‘Tarantine’ horsemen were named after the city of Tarentum in southern italy, formerly the city of Taras, which was founded by the Spartans. They were experts in mounted hit-and-run warfare (see Xen., Hell. 1.7).
Chapter 3
a. Arc 1613 = εἰρημένης.
b. Arc 1613 = ἑκάστης.
c. K&R 1855 = πρωτοστατοῦν.
d. K&R 1855 = τουτέτι.
e. K&R 1855 = συμμέτρως.
f. K&R 1855 = τὰ.
g. K&R 1855 = καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς.
h. K&R 1855 = ἐστιν.
i. K&R 1855 = ἐάν τις πλῆθος ἄτακτον.
1. See also Arr., Tact. 5.
Chapter 4
a. K&R 1855 = αὐτὸν.
b. K&R 1855 = ἄν τε γὰρ ἀκοντίζωσιν.
c. Arc 1613 = εὐκολως.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 2.1; Arr., Tact. 5–6.
2. A group of files, arranged side by side, made a phalanx (see Chapter 7).
3. Battle lines of different depths were also a common feature of the warfare of the preceding Classical Age. For example, the Athenians were arranged eight deep at the Piraeus in 424 BC (Thuc. 4.94) as were the Spartans at Mantinea in 418 BC (Thuc. 5.68), in Thrace in 402 BC (Polyaenus, Stratagems 2.2.9), at Maeander in 399 BC (Xen., Hell. 3.2.16), and at Corcyra in 373 BC (Xen., Hell. 6.2.21). The Spartans had also deployed ‘not more than twelve deep’ for the battle of Leuctra in 371 BC (Xen., Hell. 6.4.12), while the Syracusans deployed in files of sixteen in 394 BC (Thuc. 6.67). Sixteen deep was also the ordered deployment for the battle of Nemea in 394 BC (Xen., Hell. 4.2.18). Some of the deepest deployments that are recorded include the twenty-five deep Theban line for the battle of Delium in 424 BC (Thuc. 4.93) and the fifty deep deployments by the Athenians at the Piraeus in 404 BC (Xen., Hell. 2.4.11) and the Thebans at leuctra in 371 BC (Xen., Hell. 6.4.12). Arrian (Anab. 7.23.3–4) calls the file a dekad (δεκάδος), which suggests a file of ten men (the Roman term was decuria). This appellation seems to have been retained in Hellenistic armies regardless of the size of the file, as the reformed infantry of Alexander that Arrian describes is still a file of sixteen men, but under the command of a dekadarchos (δεκαδάρχος); see Chapter 5.
4. In Chapter 11, Aelian discusses the different intervals that should be observed between each man in the different configurations of the phalanx. He states that in an ‘open-order’ each man should be separated by 4 cubits (192cm), in an ‘intermediate-order�
�� by 2 cubits (96cm), and in a ‘close-order’ each man is separated by 1 cubit (48cm). As such, a sixteen deep phalanx arranged in open order would have a depth of over 30m. A phalanx arranged thirty-two deep in open order would have a depth of over 60m. While both archers and slingers could fire their missiles over such a formation (even when it is assumed that there would also be an interval between the back of the phalanx and the body of light troops), it is unlikely that light troops armed with javelins would be able to cast their weapons over such formations without risking hitting the men in the forward ranks in the back as the average range for a javelin was only about 30m at most. It seems more likely that Aelian is referring only to weapons cast over the top of formations in either intermediate or close order.
Chapter 5
a. Arc 1613 = ἐστι.
b. K&R 1855 = ἐνωμοτίας.
c. K&R 1855 = ἐνωμοτίας διμοιρίαν.
d. Arc 1613 = ἐστιν.
e. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
f. Arc 1613 = δὲ.
g. K&R 1855 = ἔτι τοῦ.
h. Arc 1613 = ἐπὶ τοὺτου κατόπιν; Κ&R 1855 = ἔτι τοῦ κατόπιν.
i. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
j. K&R 1855 = οὕτως.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 2.2–3; Arr., Tact. 6–7.
2. The word used here for ‘file’ is stichos (στίχος) rather than lochos. Stichos is a word that has several meanings pertaining to organization (not just of men, but of trees and writing as well). In the sense of this passage, it is meant to convey the idea of men arranged in an orderly manner, one behind the other.
3. In other words, in a file of sixteen, the file would be led by the file leader at the head of the file (position 1) while the dimorites was, in effect, the half-file leader (located in position 9), with the half-file under his command covering the rear half (the last eight ranks) of a sixteen-man file. Asclepiodotus (Tact. 2.2) calls the half-file a hemilochion (ἡμιλόχιον), under the command of a hemilochite (ἡμιλοχίτης) if the phalanx is arranged sixteen deep, or a dimoiria (διμοιρία), under the commander of a dimorites (διμοιρίτης) if the phalanx is arranged twelve deep.
4. In a sixteen-man file, there would be a file leader, then a group of six ‘followers’, and another ‘follower’ who acted as the ‘half-file closer’. Next would come the dimorites as leader of the rearward half-file, then another six ‘followers’, and finally the ouragos at the rear; this makes, as Aelian puts it, an alternating pattern of leader, follower(s), leader (of the half-file), follower(s), and finally another officer. In Alexander’s reformed infantry files (which were referred to as dekads), the file leader was known as a dekadarchos, the half-file leader was called a dimorites, and the closer of each half-file was called a dekastateros (a ‘10–stater man’); see Arr., Anab. 7.23.3–4; Tact. 6.2; Diod. Sic. 17.34.1. Asclepiodotus (Tact. 2.3) says that the ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ alternated, one behind the other, throughout the file. This is echoed in the illustrations that accompany the earlier editions of the Tactics. However, based upon the configuration of Alexander’s formations as outlined by Arrian, this seems unlikely. In a sixteen-deep file, the half-file leader (in position 9) would assume the position of a ‘leader’ if the titles of ‘leader’ and ‘follower’ alternated backwards from the file-leading lochargos. However, within the same configuration, the seemingly experienced ‘half-file closer’, standing in position 8, would occupy the place of a ‘follower’ behind a relatively inexperienced ‘leader’ in rank 7. This suggests two possible alternatives: 1) if the titles of ‘leader’ and ‘follower’ provided by Asclepiodotus and Aelian do alternate backwards from the file-leading lochargos as some interpretations suggest, then the titles are in name only and are not an indication of rank or experience; or 2) each half-file was arranged as detailed above with a ‘leader’ (the lochargos), then a group of followers, and then another ‘leader’ acting as the half-file closer (the dekastateros).
Chapter 6
a. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
b. K&R 1855 = λοχαγοῦ.
c. K&R 1855 = λοχαγοῦ.
d. K&R 1855 = ὁ.
e. K&R 1855 = λοχαγοῦ.
f. K&R 1855 = μετὰ.
g. K&R 1855 = εἶτα.
h. K&R 1855 = τοιοῦτον.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 2.5; Arr., Tact. 7.
2. The lateral joining of files in this manner gives breadth to the formation and creates what is known as the phalanx (see Chapter 7).
Chapter 7
a. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
b. This does not appear in Rob 1552.
c. K&R 1855 = δύο ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ.
d. K&R 1855 = λαιὸν.
e. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
f. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or K&R 1855.
g. Arc 1613 = κατεπειγούσας.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 2.7; Arr., Tact. 8–9.
2. See chapters 15–17.
3. All of this is covered in the following chapters of the book. In some earlier translations of the text, this passage forms the start of the eighth chapter rather than the conclusion of the seventh.
Chapter 8
a. K&R 1855 = τὸν τακτικὸν.
b. K&R 1855 = γιγνώσκειν.
c. Arc 1613 = τουτέστι; K&R 1855 = ἔστιν.
d. This does not appear in Rob 1552.
e. Arc 1613 = τότε.
f. Arc 1613 = δὲ.
g. Arc 1613 = ἡμίσυ.
h. K&R 1855 = τακτικὰ γραψάντων.
i. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
j. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
k. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
l. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
m. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
n. Arc 1613 = διαγραφῆς.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 2.7; Arr., Tact. 9, 14.
2. The process of ‘doubling’, which is covered in Chapter 28, is where the half-files from the rear of the lochos move forward into the intervals between the forward half-files (i.e. taking the phalanx from sixteen to eight deep). If the interval between the forward half-files is not increased, the new formation will contain the same number of men, with the same frontage, but will be of only half its original depth. The process was one way to achieve a transition from an intermediate order to a close order (or from open order to intermediate order). Conversely, the process could be executed in reverse and a formation originally deployed eight-deep in close order could be opened into an intermediate order by having each alternate file of eight re-form behind the forward half-file (thus becoming the rear half-file and changing the phalanx from eight to sixteen deep).
3. In other words, 16,384 infantry, 8,192 light troops and 4,096 cavalry, for a total of 28,672 men.
4. As such, any number that did not accommodate this sort of dividing process would result, during one of the sub-divisions, in an odd number of men left over or in a unit of a greater or lesser size than would allow for such a division to continue in a regular manner. Consequently, for the sake of mathematical (and possibly operational) ease, the phalanx should be, at least, based upon a smallest unit of two, which can then be incremented by simply merging two of each of the smaller units together to ultimately create a phalanx of 16,384 men. Obviously, it was not likely that this process was adhered to in its entirety due to the variables of war. Certainly, the Classical Greeks could not have adhered to this principle when their deployments of twenty-five and fifty deep are considered (although the common usage of a phalanx eight deep by the Classical Greeks may suggest otherwise). However, it does appear that the armies of the Hellenistic period were arranged in such a way. Appian (Syriacus 107B), for example, says that the army of
Antiochus ‘contained a phalanx of 16,000 Macedonians [i.e. phalangites] drawn up in the manner adopted by Philip and Alexander. He placed the phalanx in the centre of his line and divided it into ten equal parts, with each having a frontage of fifty men and a depth of thirty-two men’ (see also Livy 33.4, 34.40). The even number of 16,000 used by both Appian and Livy is most likely to be a rounded figure. Interestingly, though, the missing 384 men of their numbers equates exactly with another twelve files drawn up thirty-two deep.
Chapter 9
a. K&R 1855 = ὄνομα.
b. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
c. K&R 1855 = αύνταγμα.
d. Arc 1613 = τούτων.
e. Rob 1552 = καθὲκαστον.
f. K&R 1855 = γὰρ.
g. K&R 1855 = περιέχειν.
h. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
i. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or Κ&R 1855.
j. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
k. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
l. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
m. K&R 1855 = τελάρχης.
n. K&R 1855 = μεραρχίαι.
o. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
p. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or K&R 1855.
q. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
r. Arc 1613 = ταξιάρχους.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 2.8–10; Arr., Tact. 10.
2. The name of this officer implies the command of 500 men. This is, of course, a rounded number to fit the name of the officer.
3. K&R 1855 uses the other term here: merarchiae.
4. Thus, according to Aelian, there would be 1,020 officers within the entire phalanx (not including the supernumeraries or the individual leaders of the files): 4 phalangarchs, 8 merarchs, 16 chiliarchs, 32 pentakosiarchs, 64 syntagmatarchs, 128 taxiarchs, 256 tetrarchs, and 512 dilochitae. One problem that Aelian does not provide an answer for is that, to possess such numbers, the phalanx has to have an uneven frontage with each of the officers positioned ahead of their respective units. This makes no tactical sense, as it would give the formation an uneven frontage and would leave senior officers exposed when two battle-lines met on the field (which is how it is depicted in the illustrations accompanying some earlier editions of the text). Within the smaller units of the phalanx, it seems more likely that a sub-unit commander’s position was taken by a superior officer. For example, in the arrangement given in Plate 3, the position of the lochargos on the right-hand side of the formation is taken by the syntagmatarch in command of the overall unit. As the scale of the unit increases, more and more positions on the far left and right side of units are occupied by increasingly superior officers. It can only be assumed that, in any unit greater than a tetrarchia, the superior officer would occupy either the left-hand or right hand position, and that the sub-unit commander would simply shift his location left or right accordingly, so as to take up a new position beside his immediate superior (with the possible exception of the dilochites). In effect, most of the individual lochargoi are replaced by superior officers. This results in the entire front rank being made up of officers of one kind or another. This was a practice of ancient Greek warfare that went back at least to the Archaic Age and continued through the Classical period (where even Spartan kings held a specific position in the front rank) and into the Hellenistic period (see hom., Il. 4.297–300; Xen., cyr. 2.3.22, 6.3.25; Mem. 3.1.7–8; Lac. 11.5, 13.6; Arr., Tact. 12). However, the positioning of officers in these earlier periods seems not to have followed so complex a mathematical model as Aelian outlines in the next chapter.
The Tactics of Aelian Page 16