The Tactics of Aelian
Page 19
Chapter 23
a. K&R 1855 = τὸν.
b. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
c. K&R 1855 = παραγγέλλῃ γενέσθαι τι.
d. K&R 1855 = ῥᾳδίως.
e. Rob 1552 = μὲντοι; this does not appear in Arc 1613.
f. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
g. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
h. Arc 1613 = ἐπ’ ὀρθὸν; K&R 1855 = ἐς ὀρθὸν.
i. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
j. K&R 1855 = πρόσταξις.
k. K&R 1855 = πρόταξις.
l. K&R 1855 = συντόμων.
m. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 10.1; Arr., Tact. 20.
Chapter 24
a. K&R 1855 = στρέψαντος.
b. Arc 1613 = τουτέστιν; K&R 1855 = τοῦτ’ ἔστιν.
c. Arc 1613 = τουτέστιν; K&R 1855 = τοῦτ’ ἔστιν.
d. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
e. Arc 1613 = κατ’.
f. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
g. K&R 1855 = πυπυκνμένου.
h. K&R 1855 = ἐπιστροφῇ.
i. Arc 1613 = αποστροφή.
j. K&R 1855 = ἑκάστῳ.
k. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
l. Rob 1552 = ἐστι.
m. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 10.2–12; Arr., Tact. 21.
2. In other words, each change of facing is conducted by a turn of ninety degrees to either the left or right. If conducted in the same direction twice, the soldier will have turned through 180 degrees and will be facing in the opposite direction from his original position.
3. In other words, this is a complete ‘about-face’ through 180 degrees turning either left or right.
4. The 1814 edition by Augustus has this the other way around (i.e. turning to the shield away from the enemy and turning to the pike towards the enemy). Clearly this does not agree with the Greek.
5. Such circumstances would be when the formation was in close order, or when advancing in a more open order but with their pikes levelled.
6. That is, the leader of the left-hand file stands fast while the remainder of the formation wheels around using him as the pivot.
7. This would most likely be done by wheeling the formation back in the other direction. However, while this allows for the formation to face in its original direction, it would not necessarily be occupying the same position, as Aelian states, without a great deal of manoeuvering.
8. Thus, the formation turns through 270 degrees. Aelian does not elaborate why this would be conducted, when a simple wheel 90 degrees in the other direction would result in the same outcome.
Chapter 25
a. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
b. Rob 1552= τὸ; Arc 1613 = τὸ ἐπ’.
c. K&R 1855 = φυλάσσοντα; Arc 1613 = φυλάσσοντας.
d. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
e. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
f. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
g. K&R 1855 = ἐς.
h. K&R 1855 = τις.
1. See also Arr., Tact. 22.
2. On the ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ of a file, see Chapter 5.
3. It is unlikely that such orders as Aelian uses here would actually be given in the heat of battle. It is more likely that he is using an enemy as a point of reference to provide a clear interpretation of a drill movement that followed others that, for whatever reason, were only temporary (such as when training in certain movements). A good common translation of this order would be ‘as you were!’ The term ep orthon [ἐπ’ ὀρθὸν] can also be used to command the adoption of an erect posture (i.e. to stand at attention).
Chapter 26
a. K&R 1855 = ζυγά.
b. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
c. K&R 1855 = Κρητικὸς καὶ Περσικὸς καὶ χόριος
d. K&R 1855 = τόπων.
e. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
f. K&R 1855 = ζυγά.
g. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
h. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
i. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
j. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 10.13; Arr., Tact. 23–24.
2. This method of counter-marching was known as the ‘Choral Counter-march’ because the chorus in a Greek dramatic performance, traversing the stage in a measured step, would use this method to change direction.
3. In other words, a counter-march is a way of having a formation change the direction of its facing by 180 degrees, repositioning the file-leaders to the new front, without going through the process of wheeling, as is outlined in Chapter 24. Wheeling a formation 180 degrees required a great deal of room to accomplish (as it swung like a gate on a single pivot point). Counter-marching, on the other hand, requires no additional lateral space and so units positioned beside each other could, through the application of this manoeuvre, change their facing without impeding each other. Indeed, a whole phalanx of thousands of men arranged in numerous sub-units could all turn about at the same time using one of the methods of counter-march with no danger of fouling the lines. The details of how to conduct each of the different forms of counter-march are given by Aelian in Chapter 27.
4. The counter-marches outlined in the first part of this chapter were by file. That is, changing the facing of the files within the formation from front to back. Counter-marching by rank is the transition of men across the phalanx from side to side. In doing so, an officer that may have been at the head of the furthest right-hand file, would find himself, after the counter-march had been conducted, at the head of the very left-hand file. To successfully accomplish such a move, the men of the two units that were exchanging places would have to turn 90 degrees to either the left or right (in effect making long files) and then conduct a counter-march using the Cretan/Choral/Persian method, as it requires no additional space to be undertaken (see Chapter 27). Once the units had changed places, the men would then turn to face the front again. Thus the individual files would be arranged, front-to-back, just as they originally had been, but the location of each file across the battle-line would have been swapped (i.e. the file that had been on the far right would now be on the far left and so on).
Chapter 27
a. K&R 1855 = οὐραφῷ.
b. Arc 1613 = ἑν εἶχεν; K&R 1855 = ἑν εἶξεν.
c. K&R 1855 = ἀπρλθοντες.
d. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or K&R 1855.
e. Rob 1552 and Arc 1613 = ἵστανται.
f. This whole section does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
g. Rob 1552 = μεταλάξῃ; Arc 1613 = μεταλλάξῃ.
h. K&R 1855 = ὁ μὲν.
i. K&R 1855 = προτάσσηται.
j. K&R 1855 = χόριος.
k. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
l. K&R 1855 = γίγνονται.
m. K&R 1855 = τάγματα.
n. K&R 1855 = τι; Arc 1613 = ὥστε.
o. Arc 1613 = δηποτοῦν.
p. K&R 1855 = ἐξελίσσῃ.
q. K&R 1855 = ἀντιμεταλάβῃ.
r. K&R 1855 = οὐδὲν.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 10.13–16; Arr., Tact. 22–23.
2. To accomplish this movement, the formation would more than likely halt. The file-leader would then wheel about 180 degrees (most likely to the shield, i.e. the left, if an enemy force was present behind them) and look back down between the files. The remainder of the file (which was still facing forward) would then
advance past the stationary file-leader. For such a manoeuvre to operate smoothly, each file of the formation would have to march to the same side of their respective file leader (i.e. to his right or left). As each man reached a position equal to his normal interval behind the front of the line, that man would wheel about, join the newly forming file, and face back in the direction that he had come. This process would continue until the ouragoi took up their regular position at the rear of the file. Thus the file-leaders would resume their position at the head of the files, and the ouragoi would once again be in the rear, but the formation would be facing the other way. Such a transition would have been made if an enemy suddenly appeared to the rear of the line. However, while possessing the inherent risk of positioning the back of a relatively stationary formation to an advancing enemy, it had the deceptive quality of appearing as if the rearward ranks were breaking and retreating from that enemy. Should the enemy press the attack too slowly, they could be drawn in to a position where they would have to face the experienced forward ranks of a counter-marched formation rather than attacking it from the rear. However, Aelian says in Chapter 33 that the sight of what appears to be a formation in flight could actually spur on an enemy to attack with more vigour. It is uncertain why this manoeuvre is referred to as ‘Macedonian’, as both Philip and Alexander seem not to have used it, preferring instead to use the Lacedaemonian Counter-march to change the facings of their armies (see Chapter 33).
3. The process for conducting this first method of the Lacedaemonian counter-march is, more or less, the exact opposite of the earlier discussed Macedonian counter-march. Basically the men in each file about-face. The file leader (now at the back of the formation) moves down between the files and, as he passes the first man, that man falls in behind the file-leader and they continue down the interval. This process continues as the file-leader and those following him pass each man in turn, with the train following the file-leader growing as each man is passed. When the file-leader reaches the ouragos, he continues to advance forward to a distance equal to the depth of the file in its respective order (most likely determined by knowing how many paces it took to cover the depth of a file in various orders). When this distance is reached, the file-leader and those following him would halt and the ouragos would simply fall in at the back of the file. As such, the unit has changed its facing by 180 degrees but has moved into the open ground that had been to the rear of the formation, thus (as Aelian says) appearing to advance towards an enemy that had been behind the formation.
4. This section, which outlines the process of ‘doubling’, which is covered in more detail in the next chapter, only appears in Robertello’s 1552 edition of the Tactics and does not appear in any of the other Greek versions of the text (e.g. Arc 1613 or K&R 1855), nor does it appear in any of the English translations of the text such as Bingham’s 1616 edition or Augustus’ 1814 edition. It is possible that it was omitted from later editions as the information is more comprehensively covered in a later part of the work (see Chapter 28).
5. To accomplish this manoeuvre (using the second method outlined by Aelian), the leader of each file would wheel 180 degrees (either to the left or right depending upon the word of command) and move down between his file and that next to it. As the man in the second rank was passed, he too would peel off and follow the file-leader down through the interval. As each man was passed, he would also wheel around and follow down the interval. This would occur simultaneously right across the phalanx and continue until the file-closing ouragos was passed; he would then wheel about and fall in at the rear of his respective file. Thus the entire formation would now be facing in the opposite direction and all of the officers would be in their correct positions. According to Herodotus (7.211), at Thermopylae in 480 BC, the Spartans conducted such counter-marches so as to appear to be retreating from the Persians (as the Spartans were moving away from an enemy at their front and so would not appear to be advancing towards an enemy at their rear as Aelian describes). Such feigned retreats forced the Persians to disrupt their own formations by crossing the mounds of their own dead in pursuit of the supposedly retreating Spartans. However, once a short distance had been covered, which gave the Spartans a new killing ground on which to operate, they counter-marched yet again and took the battle to the Persians afresh. Such manoeuvres would also have given the Spartan front ranks a small respite from fighting to allow them to get their breath back in preparation for the ensuing struggle.
6. The benefit of the Choral/Cretan/Persian Counter-march over either the Macedonian or some versions of the Lacedaemonian model is that it could be conducted while the formation was either on the move or while stationary. The file-leaders would wheel to their designated side and march down between the files. However, rather than remain stationary and wait for those changing direction to pass, as in the other models, the file would continue to advance forwards. As each man reached the point where the file-leader had originally stood prior to the counter-march taking place, they too would then wheel about, using the file-leader’s original position as a pivot point, and follow along down between the files in the opposite direction. When the leader of each file reached the point beside the position that the ouragos of their respective file had occupied (most likely determined by knowing how many paces had to be made to cover the distance from the front to the rear of the line), the file-leaders would halt. By this stage (if each man had maintained his interval and the pace count had been correct) the ouragoi should have advanced to the position originally held by the file-leaders. The ouragoi then simply wheeled about to create a formation that was now facing the other way but had required no more room for the transition than the phalanx had originally occupied.
7. This is not entirely correct; see Chapter 26 note 4.
Chapter 28
a. Rob 1552 = τὸ.
b. K&R 1855 = ἀντὶ χιλίοι.
c. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or K&R 1855.
d. K&R 1855 = ἐν ταὐτῷ.
e. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
f. This does not appear in K&R 1855.
g. K&R 1855 = ταραχῆς.
h. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
i. This does not appear in Rob 1552; Arc 1613 = δευτέρῳ.
j. K&R 1855 = ἕως.
k. K&R 1855 = οὕτως.
l. This does not appear in Rob 1552 or Arc 1613.
m. This does not appear in Rob 1552; Arc 1613 = ἐὰν ἐξελιγμὸς γένηται.
1. See also Ascl., Tact. 10.17–20; Arr., Tact. 25.
2. This is accomplished by moving the rear half-files, under the command of the half-file leader, into the intervals of, for example, an open-order formation where the men are separated by 192cm per man. In doing so, the interval between each file of the new formation is halved to 96cm, thus creating an intermediate-order formation that still has officers positioned across the front rank. This could alternatively be seen as ‘doubling by rank’ as the rearward eight ranks of the formation are, in effect, moving forward to merge with the forward eight ranks. (See Plate 15.)
3. Aelian does not elaborate on how this was accomplished, but it seems most likely that the rear half-files about-faced and then marched forward (i.e. towards the rear) until the half-file leader was adjacent to his original position. The rear half-file would then halt, about-face, and side-step to take up their original position.
4. It is unlikely that the ‘usual’ order of the phalanx was an open order, which would have allowed, had the commander so wished, a doubling of the line. It is more likely that light troops and cavalry were positioned on the wings of a formation of regular depth (i.e. sixteen-deep) but already in intermediate-order (the closest order a body of phalangites could adopt for battle). The extra troops on the wings would give the impression that the line of infantry was wider.
5. There are numerous ways in which the width of a formation could be enlarged or ‘doubled’. One way this could be accom
plished would be by having a body of infantry move into an order with a larger interval between the men (i.e. from an intermediate-order of 96cm per man into an open-order of 192cm per man). This then doubles the amount of space that each man occupies and so increases the overall frontage of the formation. Aelian, unfortunately, does not discuss how this was carried out or whether the depth of the phalanx was altered as a result of it. Clearly, the doubling of the phalanx lengthwise cannot have been undertaken by merely inserting the rearward half-files into the intervals between the forward half-files, as this has the effect of only reducing the depth of the formation while simultaneously adopting a closer order (see note 2). It seems likely that a doubling of the width of the formation in this manner was made, for example, by having the file on the left stand firm. The remaining files would then turn to the right and then march forwards. As the distance between the files increased, with the men moving away from the file that was standing firm, each line of men would halt when they reached a point equal to double their original interval. This would then continue until all the intervals between the men had been doubled in size. All of the men would then turn to face the front, thus creating a unit with the same number of men in each file but with the space between them doubled. Another way that a formation could have doubled its width would have been by having the rear half-files separate from the forward half-files, turn to either the right or left (or have those on each wing turn to their respective sides), march behind the forward half-files, and then take up a new position beside the forward half-files. This would double the width of the line but would also halve its depth. Yet another way this could be done would be by having the rear half-files insert themselves between the forward half-files (in effect, reducing the depth of the formation from sixteen to eight) but then have them follow the first process for opening up their intervals as outlined above. This would have the effect of halving the depth of the line but quadrupling its width.