The Tactics of Aelian
Page 21
3. This last sentence does not seem to make a lot of sense when taken in conjunction with the rest of the paragraph that it is attached to. If a fully formed phalanx, of 1,024 files of sixteen men, turned to either the right or left and marched off in column, that column should contain sixteen files (the depth of the original formation) of 1,024 men each. In Binghams’ 1616 edition, this sentence is absent.
4. For the antistomos formation, see Chapter 37.
Chapter 36
a. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
b. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 35 note a.
1. For the details of such actions, see Chapter 35 (in particular, note 1).
2. This is not entirely correct. For example, if a full phalanx (1,024 files of sixteen men each) is divided in half to form a ‘double paragogē ‘, each division (having turned to the right or left to march in column) would contain sixteen files of 512 men. As such, the width of the formation (sixteen men across its front) is substantially less than its depth. It is only in some of the editions of the Tactics that this phrase (‘ten across the front and a depth of three’) is attached to this sentence; it is omitted from both the 1616 and 1814 editions, for example. It may be that this passage was written in reference to a phalanx formed ten-deep, which would, when turned to march in column, have a frontage of ten men. The reference to the column being ‘three deep’ is somewhat less certain as none of the large sub-units of the phalanx (e.g. the four phalangarchiae, or the eight merarchiae, or the sixteen chiliarchiae) can be arranged in either single, double, triple or quadruple columns so that each column contains three units (see also Chapter 35 note 2). Augustus, in a note to his 1814 edition, states that these sentences are ‘not necessary to Aelian’s purpose’ and that their meaning has been ‘considered and re-considered’, apparently with no suitable solution.
Chapter 37
a. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 35 note a.
1. See also Arr., Tact. 29.
2. The name of the formation comes from the Greek words anti (opposite) and stoma (mouth). In effect, the formation divides itself in half across the middle, with the rear half turning to face an attack coming from the rear, while the forward ranks hold off an attack coming from the front. As such, the middle rows of the formation literally stand back-to-back and the formation adopts two fronts.
Chapter 38
a. From this point, K&R 1855 differs considerably from either Rob 1552 or Arc 1613. The passage that is found in K&R 1855 is reproduced below. It is merely a summarized version of many elements of the following chapters, which are missing from K&R 1855 in their entirety.
Ἀμφίστομος μὲν οὖν φάλαγξ καλεῖται ἡ τοὺς ἡμίσεις τῶν ἐν τοῖς λόχοις ἀνδρῶν ἔχουσα ἀντινώτους ἑαυτοῖς τεταγμένους. διφαλαγγία δ’ ἀμφίστομος, ἥτις ἐν τῇ πορείᾳ τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἔχει ἐξ ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν ἐν παραγωγαῖς τεταγμένους, οὓς μὲν ἐν δεξιᾷ παραγωγῇ, οὓς δὲ ἐν εὐωνύμῳ, τοὺς δὲ οὐραγοὺς ἔσω τεταγμένους. ἡ δὲ ἀντίστομος διφαλαγγία τοὺς μὲν ἡγεμόνας ἔχει μέσους τεταγμένους, τοὺς δὲ οὐραγοὺς ἔξω ἔχουσα ἐξ ἑκατέρων τῶν μερῶν ἐν παραγωγαῖς τεταγμένους. ἑτερόστομος δὲ φάλαγξ καλεῖται, ἥτις, ἂν πορεύηται, τὸ μὲν ἡγούμενον ἥμισυ ἔχουσα ἐν εὐωνύμῳ παραγωγῇ, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἐξ εὐωνύμων, τοῦ δὲ λοιποῦ ἡμίσους τῆς φάλαγγος τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἐκ τοῦ ἑτέρου μέρους, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐν δεξιᾷ παραγωγῇ. ἡ δὲ ὁμοιόστομος ἐν τῇ πορείᾳ διφαλαγγία, ἥτις τοὺς ἡγεμόνας ἑκατέρας φάλαγγος ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν μερῶν ἔχει τεταγμένους, οἷον ἐκ δεξιῶν ἢ ἐξ εὐωνύμων ἑκατέρας φάλαγγος. εἰ δὲ ἀμφίστομος διφαλαγγία τὰ μὲν ἡγούμενα πέρατα ἀλλήλοις συνάψῃ, τὰ δὲ ἑπόμενα διαστήσῃ, τὸ τοιοῦτον καλεῖται ἔμβολον. οἱ γὰρ ἡγεμόνες προεμπίπτοντες ἐκδέχονται τοὺς πολεμίους. εἰ δὲ ἀντίστομος διφαλαγγία τὰ μὲν ἑπόμενα συνάψῃ, τὰ δὲ ἡγούμενα διαστήσῃ, τὸ τοιοῦτον κοιλέμβολον καλεῖται, καὶ ὁμοίως οἱ ἡγεμόνες προεμπίπτοντες ἐκδέχονται τοὺς πολεμίους. πλαίσιον δὲ λέγεται, ἐὰν πρὸς πάσας τὰς ἐπιφανείας πᾶς ὁπλίτης παρατάσσηται ἐν ἑτερομήκει σχήματι•πλινθίον δέ, ἐὰν ἴσαις ταῖς φάλαγξι πρὸς πάσας ἅμα τὰς ἐπιφανείας παρατάσσηταί τις ἐν τετραγώνῳ σχήματι.
b. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
1. The name of the formation comes from the Greek words amphi (on both sides) and stoma (mouth). In effect, the formation divides itself in half down the middle, with both halves turning outward to face an attack coming from the flanks. As such, the middle files of the formation literally stand back-to-back and the formation adopts two fronts.
2. As noted in the preface, the order of the chapters on the antistomos and the amphistomos vary from edition to edition. It seems likely that this sentence belongs to the previous chapter on the antistomos rather than to this one. In Augustus’ 1814 edition, he states that it is the amphistomos formation that has two fronts; one made up of file-leaders and the other of ouragoi. Clearly this cannot be the case if the formation has been divided down the middle from front to back and each side has turned outward to face the flanks. This could only occur in a formation that is divided laterally across its width (as in the antistomos formation described in Chapter 37). As such, the very description of the formation given by Aelian supports the idea that this passage belongs to the previous chapter.
Chapter 39
a. In Arc 1613, this section begins with the word amphistromos (αμφίστρομος), the name of the formation (outlined in either Chapter 37 or 38, depending upon the edition) with the phalanx divided in half from front to back and with both wings facing outwards. Rob 1552 begins this section with the word antistromos (αντίστρομος), the formation that is divided laterally across the middle. Both infantry formations vaguely resemble the formation described by Aelian in this chapter, depending upon which way the men in them are facing, and which of the terms is the correct one is uncertain. Arrian (Tact. 29) also calls this formation an antistromos double phalanx.
1. See also Arr., Tact. 29.
2. In other words, it is two parallel columns marching side-by-side, with the file-leaders of each column positioned towards the centre. Both units could be faced inwards, or obliquely forward, towards the gap between the formations. As Aelian later explains in this chapter, such a formation was designed to be used against cavalry formed into a wedge. It was anticipated that the apex of the wedge would plunge into the gap with any charge made against the phalanx, in effect trapping itself between two walls of pikes coming from either side.
3. In Chapter 28, Aelian says that it was the Scythians and Thracians who invented the cavalry wedge and that this formation was later adopted by the Macedonians.
Chapter 40
a. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
1. This is two units marching in column, but the outside flank of each unit is deployed obliquely, so that the formation has an angled front. (See Plate 25.) Both units are arranged so that their file-leaders are on the outside of the whole formation and their
ouragoi are on the inside.
Chapter 41
a. Arc 1613 = σχήματι.
b. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
1. The name of the formation comes from the Greek words homoios (the same) and stoma (mouth). In effect, it is a formation marching in column by files (not necessarily in single file as Aelian implies here). For example, a tetrarchia can march in homoiostomos fashion by being arranged with each dilochia, one behind the other, or by having each of the lochoi marching one behind the other, as each of the units in the column would possess a depth of sixteen men. Aelian does not elaborate on the required width of this formation. However, it seems that the important factor in the homoiostomos formation is the repetition of units arranged by file following one behind the other. Interestingly, the illustrations that accompany both Robertello’s 1552 edition and Arcerius’ 1613 edition both differ from the description given by Aelian. In the 1552 edition, the homoiostomos phalanx is shown as two files of sixteen men with the men of each file turned by 90 degrees, so that the formation is advancing in two lines with a width of sixteen rather than in two files with a depth of sixteen as Aelian describes. Between these rows of pikemen is a row of archers, while another row of archers is positioned behind the back rank. The 1613 edition shows the homoiostomos formation as four rows of sixteen (rather than in a depth of sixteen) but the formation is divided laterally in half, with the front two rows turned about to face the ones at the rear. Neither depiction conforms with Aelian’s description.
2. The illustration of the plinthium in Robertello’s 1552 edition shows the heavy-armed pikemen arranged in a hollow square with archers positioned in the middle. While this is one practical application of a hollow-square formation, this depiction more closely resembles the plaison formation referred to in Chapter 48 and clearly goes against the description given by Aelian. The illustration in Arcerius’ edition of 1613 shows a solid square of infantry with the files on the left and right-hand sides facing outwards. However, both illustrations contain more pikemen than the sixteen referred to by Aelian in this chapter.
3. What Aelian is describing here is a syntagma, sixteen files of sixteen men each. The two dimoiriae that Aelian mentions march behind each other in single file (i.e. It is one lochos), and sixteen files create a syntagma which is a formation that has an equal frontage on all sides.
Chapter 42
a. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
Chapter 43
a. Rob 1552 = κεθ’.
a. Rob 1552 = ἀκροβολικῶν.
c. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
1. Aelian attributes the invention of this formation to Jason of Phaerae in Chapter 18.
2. For the features of the rhombus cavalry formation, see Chapters 18 and 19.
3. For the Tarantine cavalry, see Chapter 2.
4. Aelian says that the city of Tarentum, formerly the city of Taras, is in Sicily (Τάρας γὰρ πόλις τῆς Σιχελίας). Tarentum is, in fact, located in the arch of the sole of the boot of Italy and is about 300km (as the crow flies) from Sicily. According to Strabo (Geography 6.3), Taras was originally founded by the Spartans following the wars with Messenia as a colony to house ‘undesirable’ children, the so-called parthenai, who had been born to women who had slept with men accused of cowardice and stripped of their Spartan citizenship, because they had refused to go off to war.
Chapter 44
a. This does not appear in Arc 1613.
b. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
1. For the transverse phalanx, see Chapter 29.
Chapter 45
a. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
1. For the features of the rhombus cavalry formation, see Chapters 18 and 19.
2. Aelian attributes the invention of this formation to Ileon in Chapter 43, while he attributes it to a certain Jason (most likely Jason of Pherae) in Chapter 18. Yet here, Aelian ascribes the improvement of the cavalry rhombus to Jason, the ruler of Iolcus, the famed hero who journeyed to recover the Golden Fleece with the Argonauts. Undoubtedly, Jason of Iolcus earned a reputation as a great mariner, but his reputation as a cavalry officer is somewhat more dubious. Jason of Iolcus supposedly lived during the ‘Heroic Age’, at least 1,000 years before the time of Aelian, and much of what is known about him can only be regarded as conjecture based upon folklore, epic myth and oral tradition. Jason of Pherae, on the other hand, lived during the fourth century BC; his cavalry had a great reputation for their skill at arms, and a great deal more is known about him as a military commander (see Chapter 18 note 2). It is most likely that Aelian has confused the two Jasons of Thessalian history, and that it was Jason of Pherae who improved on, if not invented, the cavalry rhombus in the fourth century BC.
3. In other words, it is a concave formation where the phalanx is arranged in three columns or formations, with each of the units on the wings swept forward of the centre.
4. It is interesting here that Aelian describes the use of this infantry formation to resist the charge of oncoming cavalry when, earlier in the chapter, he states that the cavalry formation that the epicampios emprosthia is best suited to oppose is a rhombus of mounted archers (who would not actually charge into the ‘trap’, as Aelian calls it, set by the epicampios emprosthia formation).
Chapter 46
a. This does not appear in Arc 1613 or K&R 1855.
b. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
1. The name of this formation, coming from the Greek words kamptien (to bend) and opisthen (behind) initially implies a reversal of the epicampios emprosthia (mentioned in Chapter 45) into a convex formation, with the wings positioned to the rear of the central units. However, in that chapter, Aelian does not mention that the wings and centre of the epicampios emprosthia were of different depths. It seems that the epicampios opisthia had the divisions positioned on the wings formed up in column, while the centre was arranged in its normal elongated ranks, thus giving the centre a thinner depth than the wings (and so placing more men ‘in the rear’, as Aelian puts it). However, these wings still appear to have been forward of the centre in the same manner as the epicampios emprosthia. In all of the earlier editions of Aelian, the illustrations accompanying this chapter differ from each other. In Robertello’s 1552 edition, for example, the formation is depicted as a concave shape with the wings swept forward. This may be a depiction of the formation as it would stand prior to contact with the enemy (see following note). However, the central section, which Aelian says is three times thinner than the wings, is depicted in this illustration as having a depth of only half that of the wings. In Arcerius’ 1613 edition, the epicampios opisthia is depicted as a convex formation with the wings swept back. However, here again, the central section is depicted thinner than the wings only by half. It may be that this image was meant to depict the formation after the wings had been forced back by a strong enemy attack (see following note).
2. Here Aelian outlines the purpose of such a formation. Should the forward-swept wings of the initial deployment be able to resist an attack in the same manner as the epicampios emprosthia formation, then the line would hold, as is shown in Robertello’s 1552 edition. However, if the thinner wings were forced back, they could retire a short distance and take up a position beside the central division (as the deeper wing formations would supply more rows of reserves and allow it to ‘hold its ground’, as Aelian describes). This redeployment would then create a solid frontage across the re-formed phalanx, as is depicted in the 1613 edition by Arcerius. Thus, when the new position had been taken up, the enemy, who had previously been only engaging men on the wings, would find itself confronted, not only by the troops from the wings that it had just forced back, but also by the central units as well.
3. This is the direct opposite o
f the menoeides formation mentioned in Chapter 43. It is a convex line with the wings swept back. This further suggests that the epicampios opisthia formation begins, at least, with its wings swept forward.
Chapter 47
a. This does not appear in Rob 1552.
b. This does not appear in Rob 1552.
c. Rob 1552 = γίνεται δὲ ἡ ἀμφίστομος τῆς πορείας διφαλαγγία ὅταν τὰ μὲν ἐμπροσθεν κέρατα συνάψῃ.
d. This whole chapter does not appear in K&R 1855. See Chapter 38 note a.
1. The Battle of Leuctra was fought in 371 BC. Both Plutarch (Pel. 23) and Diodorus (15.55.2) state that the contingent of Theban allies at Leuctra formed an oblique line (λοξὴ φάλαγξ) designed to draw the opposing wing forward (cf. Polyaenus, Strat. 1.35.1). According to Xenophon (Hell. 6.4.12), the Thebans, on the left wing of the line, were arranged in a column ‘at least fifty shields deep’ rather than in the wedge that Aelian describes here. At the head of this formation stood the small contingent of the elite Theban Sacred Band (Plut., Pel. 18–19, 23; Nepos, Pelopidas 4.2). As such, the Theban formation may have resembled something of a stepped wedge, with one small quadrilateral formation positioned ahead of a larger quadrilateral formation, but this is not the formation that Aelian describes in this chapter. The Thebans employed a wedge formation at Mantinea in 362 BC (Xen., Hell. 7.5.22–23) and it appears that Aelian may have confused the two battles.