Chapter 10
a. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
b. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
c. K&R 1855 = ἐπὶ τῆς εὐωνύμου.
d. K&R 1855 = τὴν δὲ τετάρτην καὶ τρίτην.
e. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
f. K&R 1855 = τετάρτην.
g. Arc 1613 = οὕτως.
h. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
i. Arc 1613 = ἐπὶ.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 3.1–6.
2. Diodorus (17.34.1) similarly states that the officers of each unit are positioned at the head of their men.
3. In other words, there are two ‘average’ officers in command of the two phalangarchiae on the left wing, while the best commander and the most inexperienced commander hold the two units on the right wing. Thus, any deficiency in the command skills of the officer leading the fourth phalangarchia is offset by the superior abilities of the lead phalangarch commanding the unit next to him. This, in effect, means that both wings have a relatively equal, albeit average, level of command.
4. Here, Aelian outlines only the position for four of the merarchs. However, in Chapter 9, he states that there were eight merarchs in all. Later in Chapter 10, Aelian outlines how the positioning of the officers was based upon a mathematical balance. As such, the position of these remaining merarchs can be determined by simply following this formula. Each officer is given a ‘command value’ based upon his rank (i.e the first ranked officer has a value of 1, the second officer has a value of 2, and so on). Based upon this principle, and Aelian’s description for the positioning of the phalangarchs and the first four merarchs, the command value of the first phalangarchia equals 2, the second phalangarchia equals 4, the third phalangarchia equals 6, and the fourth phalangarchia equals 8. If the remaining officers (ranked fifth to eighth) are distributed following the same principle as the others (i.e. placing the most senior in the first phalangarchia, the next in the second phalangarchia, etc.) then the ‘command value’ of the first phalangarchia equals 7 (1+1+5), the second phalangarchia equals 10 (2+2+6), the third phalangarchia equals 13 (3+3+7), and the fourth phalangarchia equals 16 (4+4+8). While this does not create an equal balance of command between the individual merarchia, it does result in a balance of command on each wing, with the ‘command value’ of all officers on each wing equalling 23. The most likely position for these remaining four merarchs is in the units that do not have a merarch already assigned to them. However, as each of these units already contains a phalangarch, the most likely position for the merarchs is at the head of the file on the opposite side of the unit from the phalangarch. This is the arrangement given in figure 3.
Figure 2: The position of the phalangarchs across the front of a phalanx.
Figure 3: The position of the merarchs across the front of a phalanx.
Figure 4: The position of the lochargoi across the front of a tetrarchia.
5. Aelian now reduces the scale of his examination of the placement of officers by several factors to concentrate on the smallest sub-units of the phalanx (the files of the tetrarchia and the dilochia). However, the positioning of officers within these smaller sub-units still follows the same principles.
Chapter 11
a. K&R 1855 = πυκνώσῃς.
b. K&R 1855 = τοῦτ’ ἔστι.
c. K&R 1855 = ἔτι δέχεσθαι.
d. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
e. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
f. K&R 1855 = ἐπάγειν.
g. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
h. K&R 1855 = πεφραγμένους.
i. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
j. K&R 1855 = τετραχίλιοι.
k. K&R 1855 = τοῦτ’ ἔστι.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 4.1–4; Arr., Tact. 12.
2. Aelian does not outline what this situation may be. However, it is most likely that an open-order was only used when an army was on the march and no immediate threat was in evidence.
3. By the Hellenistic period, most of the Greek world used a system of measurements that incorporated a cubit of 48cm. Such a system had been used in the Peloponnese for quite some time and was later adopted by the Athenians for the construction of the Parthenon around 447 BC; see W.B. Dinsmoor, ‘The basis of Greek temple design in Asia Minor, Greece and Italy’, Atti VII Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Classica I (Rome, 1961), pp. 358–361. It is most likely that this system of measurements was imposed by Athens on all of the member states of the Delian League some time after 445 BC as part of the ‘coinage decree’, which converted all of Athens’ allies onto the one standard of coins, weights and measures (IG I³ 1453; M&L 45, clause 12; see also H.B. Mattingly, “The Athenian Coinage Decree”, Historia 10, 1961, pp. 148–188; ‘Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire’, Historia 41, 1992, pp. 129–138; ‘new light on the Athenian Standards Decree’, Klio 75, 1993, pp. 99–102).
4. In these opening sentences, Aelian discusses the different intervals that could be used in the deployments of the various infantry that could be found within an army (hoplites, phalangites and psiloi; see Chapter 2). However, it is important to note that not all of the different infantry types could be accommodated by each of the different intervals. Slingers, for example, require a certain amount of room to use their weapons and can only have been deployed in an open-order at best. Javelineers and archers, requiring less room to use their weapons, could be deployed as tightly as the intermediate-order yet still have enough room to discharge their missiles. Phalangites could be easily accommodated by either the open or intermediate-order interval. However, numerous ancient writers state that the pikes held by the front few ranks projected between the files and beyond the front of the line (see Chapter 14). This positioning of the weapons between the files, and the small diameter of their shield, makes it impossible for phalangites to stand in the 48cm interval of the close-order formation and create a line with ‘interlocked shields’ (or ‘with shields brought together’ as the term synaspismos can be translated), while keeping the shield in a protective position across the front of the body and the weapons poised for combat. It appears that phalangites only adopted the close-order to undertake such manouevres as wheeling, which required their pikes to be carried vertically (see Chapter 31). Some scholars have come up with different theories and models for how a file of phalangites may have stood in order to fit into a close-order interval and still engage in combat with the men standing almost side-on; for example, see J. Warry, Warfare in the Classical World (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), pp. 72–73. Such models seem incorrect as they do not conform with the terminology (in that the shields of the phalangites are neither ‘interlocked’ nor are they ‘brought together’), the shield is removed from its protective position across the front of the body, and/or the phalangite is contorted into a position that would make the effective use of his weapon all but impossible. It is only the larger shield (aspis) carried by the Greek hoplite that will allow for the creation of an interlocked ‘shield wall’ that could be used in combat. When standing in a close-order interval of 48cm per man, the 90cm-diameter aspis extends to either side of the hoplite and overlaps with those being carried by the men beside him. This did not inhibit the use of the hoplite spear, which was held in a couched position, tucked into the armpit and extending over the rim of the shield; see C.A. Matthew, ‘When Push Comes to Shove: What was the Othismos of Hoplite Combat?’ Historia 58.4 (2009), pp. 395–415. It is also interesting to note that the root of the terminology used to describe this formation is the word aspis rather than the word peltē, further suggesting its correlation with troops armed as hoplites. Diodorus (16.3.2) states that one of the reforms of the Macedonian army made by Philip in 360 BC was the adoption of the close-order formation in imitation of earlier Greek formations. Due to the limitations imposed by the phalangite’s panoply, it is most likely that the descri
ptions by authors such as Aelian and Diodorus for the use of a close-order interval by Hellenistic armies for combat should only be applied to troops armed as classical hoplites rather than as phalangites.
5. A stadion was another Greek unit of measure equal to 600 Greek feet. A Greek foot equaled ⅔ of a cubit, or 32cm. Thus, one stadion equalled 192m. The stadion was also the distance between the start and finish lines in the stadiums where the great pan-Hellenic games were held, hence its name. At Olympia, this distance is 191m, evidence for the use of a unit of measure incorporating a 48cm cubit, in the Peloponnese at least (this system of measurement is often referred to as the Olympic or Peloponnesian Standard). Further evidence for the use of this unit of measure by Hellenistic armies comes from the recordings of distance taken by the bematists who accompanied the army of Alexander the Great. The bematists were professional surveyors, taught to walk with a regular, measured step so that distances could be accurately recorded. Many of the measurements taken by Alexander’s bematists were later recounted by Pliny (HN 6.61–62) and Strabo (11.8.9). Strabo, for example, recounts that the distance measured by the bematists between Alexandria Arieon (modern Herat in north-western Afghanistan) and Prophthasia (modern Juwain in south-west Afghanistan) was 1,600 stades (or 307km, if converted into the Peloponnesian Standard). The actual distance between these two locations is 304km, yet further proof of the use of the 48cm cubit, this time in direct connection with Alexander’s army. Aelian’s figure of 10 stadia and 96 cubits for the size of a formation deployed in open-order calculates to 1,968m, and so is just outside of the other given size of 4,096 cubits (1,966m).
Chapter 12
a. K&R 1855 = ἔσται.
b. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
c. K&R 1855 = ὀκταπήχους.
d. K&R 1855 = μέχρι.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 5.1–2; Arr., Tact. 12.
2. Here Aelian uses the term aspis, the name of the shield of the Classical hoplite, rather than the name of the smaller Macedonian shield used by the phalangite (peltē), as an umbrella term simply meaning ‘shield’. The archaeological evidence for the Hellenistic shield (peltē) shows that they were fashioned from a wooden core that was faced with a thin layer of bronze. The literary sources also speak of shields covered with gold and silver depending upon the unit that the bearer belonged to. Others seem to have been painted white. The shield had a central armband (porpax, πόρπαξ) through which the left forearm was inserted up to the elbow, a strap that went around the left wrist, and a shoulder strap (telamon, τελαμών) to help support some of its weight. The small diameter of the shield allowed the left hand, which was not used to carry the shield, to extend beyond the rim, so that it could be used to wield the weighty sarissa, which was held in both hands.
3. The smallest unit of measure in the ancient Greek world was the daktylos (δάκτυλος), a unit representing the thickness of a finger, or 2cm (Hdt. 1.60; AP 12.50). Four daktyloi made a palm (palastē, παλαστή). Herodotus (2.149) states that a foot (pous, πούς) equalled four palms, and a cubit equalled six palms. Thus, the phalangite shield was around 64cm in diameter and, as Aelian says, not too concave. This is borne out through the archaeological evidence. A terracotta mould used to create the metallic covering for the shields of a Ptolemaic army (3rd century BC), now in the Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam, measures 70cm in diameter. However, this mould creates a covering large enough to have its edges folded over the wooden core of a shield of around 64cm in diameter. Similarly, the covering of a Hellenistic shield found at Pergamon measures 63cm in diameter; see K. Liampi, Der makedonische schild (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1998), pp. 59–61, pl.5.
4. As with his examination of the shield in this chapter, here Aelian uses the term doru, the name of the spear carried by the Classical hoplite, rather than the term for the Macedonian pike (sarissa). In Chapter 14, Aelian outlines what he says is the ‘proper size of the sarissa’, originally 16 cubits (768cm) in length, but later reduced to 14 cubits (672cm). Devine finds similarities with the terminology used by Asclepiodotus (5.1), in which he states that the pike (which he also calls the doru) should be ‘no shorter than 10 cubits, so that the part that projects forward of the line is no less than 8 cubits. In no case, however, is the weapon longer than 12 cubits so as to project 10 cubits’ (δόρυ δὲ αὖ οὐκ ἔλαττον δεκαπήχεος, ὥστε τὸ προπῖπτον αὐτοῦ εἶναι οὐκ ἔλαττον ἢ ὀκτάπηκυ) and the terminology used by Aelian (δόρυ δὲ μὴ ἔλαττον ὀκταπήχους). Devine suggests that a central passage, equivalent to the passage of Asclepiodotus underlined above, is missing from Aelian’s text (see A.M. Devine, ‘The Short Sarissa: Tactical reality or scribal error’, AHB 8.4 (1994), p. 132). Devine concludes that both Asclepiodotus and Aelian are saying fundamentally the same thing: ‘the spear [i.e. sarissa] is not less than 10 cubits long and extends beyond the rank not less than 8 cubits’. Numerous other ancient writers provide details of the varying lengths of the sarissa throughout the Hellenistic period. Besides Asclepiodotus (above), Theophrastus (Caus. pl. 3.12) also details a 12-cubit weapon in use in the early Hellenistic period. Polyaenus (Strat. 2.29.2) describes a weapon 16 cubits in length used by the garrison of Edessa in 300 BC, and Polybius (18.29) echoes Aelian’s Chapter 14 by stating that the weapons of the mid-late Hellenistic period had been 16 cubits in length, while the weapons used in his time (c. 168 BC) had been reduced to 14 cubits. As such, it appears that Aelian is referring to the length of the sarissa at three different points across the Hellenistic period: the 10- or 12-cubit weapon of the early Hellenistic period in Chapter 12; the 16-cubit weapon of the mid-Hellenistic period in Chapter 14; and the 14-cubit weapon of the late Hellenistic period, also in Chapter 14.
Chapter 13
a. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
b. K&R 1855 = στομώματι.
c. K&R 1855 = στόμωμα.
d. K&R 1855 = νώτου.
e. Arc 1613 = καὶ.
f. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
g. K&R 1855 = παρεφεδρεύει.
h. K&R 1855 = πολέμοις.
i. K&R 1855 = λόγου προσλεκτέον, ᾗ.
1. See also Arr., Tact. 12.
2. The ‘edge’ [parataxis, παράταξις] is one of the names for the front rank outlined by Aelian in Chapter 7.
3. According to Polybius (18.29), the sarissae of the first five ranks of the formation projected between the files and beyond the shields borne by the front rank. However, in the confines of the phalanx, it is unlikely that the men in ranks three, four and five would have had enough room to thrust their weapons forward enough to cover the distance to an enemy pressed against the tips of the front rank’s weapons. Consequently, it may only have been the weapons of the first two ranks that reached the enemy and so constituted the ‘cutting edge’ of the formation. This was a feature that also existed in the formations of Greek hoplites during the Classical period; see C. Matthew, ‘The Continuing Reappraisal of Hoplite Warfare’, NZACT Bulletin 35.2 (2008), pp. 71–80; ‘When Push Comes to Shove: What was the Othismos of Hoplite Combat?’, Historia 58.4 (2009), pp. 395–415.
4. This, presumably, does not apply to the file-closing ouragos, the officer at the rear of the file.
Chapter 14
a. K&R 1855 = ἵστατο.
b. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
c. K&R 1855 = σαρισῶν.
d. K&R 1855 = ἀφαιρεῖ.
e. K&R 1855 = λοιποὶ.
f. K&R 1855 = ἐν.
g. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
h. K&R 1855 = ὑπεραίρουσι.
i. K&R 1855 = σαρίσας τὸ πρῶτον ζυγὸν.
j. K&R 1855 = σάρισαι.
k. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
l. This does not appear in K&R 1855.<
br />
m. K&R 1855 = σαρίσαις; this does not appear in Arc 1613.
The Tactics of Aelian Page 17