Battles and Tactics
Page 4
It has frequently been assumed that the term ‘mercenary’ when it refers to Greek or Anatolian soldiers usually means a peltast. This is often the case but certainly not in all circumstances as we know the mercenaries who fought for Darius were hoplites and they fought as hoplites when they went home to fight against their Macedonian foes in the Lamian War. Whether the troops who are described in the Diadochi battle line as mercenaries were peltasts or hoplites is open to question. The fact that they are mentioned in the main body next to phalangites suggest they are hoplites but this is not absolute as it is possible medium troops like peltasts could have been deployed as a hinge between the cavalry and main phalanx, as was the case in many of the battles Alexander fought. They subsequently occupied the same role at Raphia in 217 BC, when Antiochus III took on Ptolemy IV, and at Magnesia in 190 BC, where the Romans defeated the same Antiochus’ army.
Specialists light troops had been employed by Alexander in his conquering army and many continued to do duty under his Successors. According to Diodorus, ‘Odrysians, Triballians and Illyrians accompanied him to the number of seven thousand; and of archers and the so called Agrianians one thousand’.13 The first two of these were Thracian peoples who would have, by and large, provided light infantry, but also, perhaps, some better armoured aristocrats who doubled as hostages for a people who had recently fought against Alexander. Whether they fought as officers for their own men or on horseback with the Companions is not known. The Agrianians were a Paeonian people supplied by their king, Langarus, and were elite javelin men who, under Alexander, usually worked in tandem with the archers, who seemed to have been either Cretan or Macedonian. These two units were always at the heart of things, whether in battle or in rough country skirmishing, but after Alexander’s death we hear nothing of what became of them.
Certain geographical regions were associated with particular light infantry skills. Rhodians were renowned as slingers, who fought by hurling lead shot and neither wore armour nor carried a shield, having just a knife for use in the last extremity. There was never any intention that they should fight hand-to-hand but their lightness would allow them to stay out of harm’s way and, like snipers, try to pick off enemies. They are seldom mentioned in the battle line, though they might have been part of any group that are mentioned guarding elephants and sometimes skirmishing in front of the phalanx. These warriors were also of particular use in sieges and it is in these circumstances that we find the telltale lead shot left by them, often with curses or quips like ‘take that’ incised on the bullet. Of course, not all Rhodians were slingers and certainly not all slingers were Rhodians. They usually came from hilly regions where poor ill-equipped people might use the weapon to protect themselves and their domestic animals from predators. Achaea, Acarnania and Elis in Greece were also well known for their slingers.
Similarly the island of Crete was renowned for its archers, and, more than this, it was generally famous for its fighters for hire. The petty cities of the island were always at each other’s throats and this ensured skills in warfare were acquired that made them attractive employees for the rulers of the dissolving Macedonian Empire. The economic imperative that made many turn to this trade also meant many others turned to piracy to make a living. These Cretan bowmen were also without any body armour and with only a knife for protection. They used a recurved composite bow with usually bronze-headed, but sometimes iron-capped, arrows. Like slingers, they were at their best in sieges and it is from the detritus of these events we often find the evidence that allows them to be so described.
Javelineers, like slingers, came mainly from poorer mountainous areas, in Greece particularly from Aetolia, Acarnania and Arcadia, and from other Balkan peoples like the Agrianians. But any place could produce this most easily equipped of soldiers from amongst their own poorer classes. Often even servants might be so armed, anybody indeed who could not provide themselves with adequate arms to stand up in the battle line. These javelinmen could carry shields and even a sword but usually a lack of defensive body armour prohibited them from hand to hand fighting in the front line. Yet, nothing was absolute, as certainly Alexander armed javelin men and others with axes to hamstring elephants at the Battle of Hydaspes. As Quintus Curtius observed, ‘The Macedonians began to use axes – they had equipped themselves with such implements in advance – to hack off the elephants’ feet’.14
But what was central to these troop types was the ability on one hand to hit at long range and on the other an inability to fight in the main line of battle. Their light equipment meant they could get out of the way of most enemies, except of course cavalry to whom they were very vulnerable. Only in rough country could they stand against horsemen. Here cover meant they could escape the enemy’s swords and spears and pick them of with arrow, slingshot or javelins.
In the battle lines of the great combats, these light infantry (psiloi) are seldom mentioned except as the guards for the elephants who could be very vulnerable to light nimble soldiers who could get out of the beasts’ way and drive them into panic by a pinprick rain of missiles. This is well exampled at the assault on Megalopolis in 318 BC when Polyperchon’s elephants were halted by planks with nails in them. ‘At the same time some of the mahouts were killed by the missiles of all kinds that poured upon them from the flanks. The elephants, suffering great pain because of the clouds of missiles.’15
Gaza, in 312 BC, is another dramatic example; Ptolemy’s preparations are reported by Diodorus, ‘they also stationed their light armed units, ordering the javelin-men and archers to shoot without ceasing at the elephants and at those who were mounted upon them.’16 Once the attacking beasts had also been stopped by planks studded with nails, these light troops finished the job of routing them back into their own men, thus effectively ending the struggle.
The other occasion upon which missile men had a decisive impact in a major battle was at Ipsus in 301 BC. Here, when Antigonus’ phalanx was exposed as Demetrius galloped away with the cavalry, it was the weapons shot and thrown at the phalangites’ unprotected right side that drained their morale and led to mass desertion. And, indeed, it was missile men who either from horseback or on foot let fly the javelins that cut down the grand old man himself.
These men had, in general, a considerably lower status than their comrades who stood up in the phalanx and due to this they are less noticed in our sources. Because these light armed troops were easily recruited in almost any region, the Diadochi would have recruited them where they found them but their land of birth was seldom of interest to the historians of the time. The only type that tends to be regionally designated with any frequency is Persian bowmen and sometimes slingers. They are mentioned in the army Craterus took back to help Antipater and they are recorded as recruited by Peucestas, to the number of 10,000, to help in the guarding of Eumenes’ Pasitigris line. Later in the same campaign they are mentioned as being recruited when the satrapal army made its way to Persepolis in 317 BC, after Antigonus had moved north through the mountains of the Cossaeans.
Now, to turn to the arm of decision; to consider the horsemen, who behind their warrior king, Alexander, won all the battles in the conquest of Persia and who in the era of the Diadochi often seemed to have the final say. At the apex of both status and effectiveness in the Macedonian royal array were the 2,000-odd Companions who, with neither stirrups nor saddle but with boots and saddle cloth, were amongst the most formidable of cavalry. For protection they mainly wore an open Boeotian helmet, to allow good vision, and usually a cuirass comprised of linen reinforced with metal plates or a muscle cuirass of bronze. Their main offensive weapon was the 12-foot spear (xyston), made of tough cornel wood sheathed in metal at both ends, backed up with a short sword.
The Companions were organized into eight squadrons (ilai) of 200 each in Alexander’s day, with a separate royal agema of 300 or 400 men. They were later reorganized into 500-strong hipparchies, each of two ilai of 250 troopers, which remained the usual formation in the Successor y
ears. When the Successors established themselves they usually went into battle with a guard of 300 of the best cavalry. The Companion cavalry seem to have been originally regionally recruited, just like their compatriots in the phalanx. There are units described as being from Bottiaea, Amphipolis and Apollonia. The horsemen in the battles of the Successors who are described as Companions were undoubtedly the same sort of troops (if not the same men) as those who had ridden over with Alexander. And, in the battles where their presence is mentioned, they are always on the flank, intended to carry out the decisive strike and always led by an officer of the highest status.
Of the originals who filled the ranks at Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, some, like their infantry counterparts, would have gone home after Alexander’s death but possibly not many, as later kings of Macedonia could not field the number of Companions that Alexander could, suggesting the Asian wars really did constitute a permanent drain on the Macedonian pool of skilled cavalrymen.17 The remaining survivors divided between the dynasts as chance and personal ambition dictated. It is probable that in the Successor armies they were organized in similar units and remained, like their progenitors, made up mainly of high-born Macedonians. The extent to which non-Macedonians were recruited to provide replacements for these cavalry is unclear but it must have occurred. At Paraetacene 1,000 are mentioned on one side and 900 on the other and this is, at least, as many as the number Alexander led into Asia. Some replacements came over in his lifetime but since his death we do not know of any major injections of recruits from Macedonia and in Eumenes’ case this would anyway have been practically very difficult. High-born Iranians must have fleshed out the Companions referred to in the confederate army under Eumenes, just as they did in the Seleucid Companions who still retained the name a century later. More than this, these units of Companions were also where the friends and councillors of the new rulers fought. And, besides functioning as a powerful cavalry arm, these regiments acted as a continuing school for the young aristocrats whose families had attached themselves to the various dynasts. Blue-blooded young men who, from whichever polity they hailed, started their education as pages but then continued their schooling as the officers of the future in the Companion cavalry, just as had been the case in the days of Philip and Alexander.
Second only to this cavalry elite were the heavy horsemen from Thessaly; indeed some sources suggest they might be regarded as the equal of the Companions, ‘being Thessalians exceptional for their courage.’18 Northern Greek aristocrats numbering 1,800 initially went to Asia, where they provided much of the muscle for Parmenion (the largest squadron from Pharsalus acted as his bodyguard) when he held down the left wing in the great battles of the Persian conquest. They were equipped just like the Companions, and like them were recruited regionally, based on their home cities. But, unlike them, they were returned to Greece after a few years, when the invasion army had reached Media and Alexander was confident he had overcome all really serious Achaemenid opposition. Their presence as the key cutting edge of Greek forces in the Lamian War shows they were still the best horsemen around, and that they were available in their thousands on the Greek mainland at a time when the Macedonian state in Europe was desperately scraping round for any sort of cavalry. Apart from that significant eruption they played little role in the Diadochi wars.19
The Macedonians generally fought in a wedge formation, which they had probably learned from the Thracians, who had themselves learned it from the Scythians. This was an effective offensive formation where the unit leader could keep good control of the troopers behind him as all of them had a good view of him; ‘since all have their eyes fixed on the single squadron commander as is the case also in the flight of cranes.’20 But all these cavalry might fight in longer lines a few ranks deep or even in squares depending on what the circumstances required, and it was usually at the head of these ancient cavaliers that the army leaders would place themselves when battle was to begin. A regular squadron of 250 horse in a wedge formation would have had a frontage of 45 yards or so, thus 1,000 Companions, that often are described, would have had a frontage of around 180 yards, However, this should be doubled to give a decent interval between squadrons (cavalry would need more room than infantry) so that they are not crunched up against each other. The resultant 360 yards when extrapolated for the 3,700 horse reported on Antigonus’ right at Paraetacene would have resulted in a cavalry line not much under 1 mile in length.
The 600 allied Greek horse that are mentioned by Diodorus going east with Alexander (as hegemon of the league of Corinth) in 334 BC may have been heavy cavalry, equipped like their Thessalian cousins, or lighter troops with little armour and using javelins for combat. An indication that most were heavies is that at Gaugamela in 331 BC they are brigaded on the left under Parmenion with the Thessalian horse. After Darius was finally defeated in 330 BC they, like the Thessalians, were offered demobilization at Ecbatana but many opted to stay on in the ranks of the mercenary horse. How many allied Greek horse there were at this juncture is difficult to determine since we only know of one definite reinforcement of 150 mounts arriving at Gordium in 333 BC, but there must have been others. In any case, they are still recorded under arms during the years of the Successors but following their progress is very difficult. Certainly 500 allied horse are mentioned on Antigonus’ right at the Battle of Paraetacene, but whether this refers to these same men is unclear. Here, as at Gaugamela, they are brigaded with the heavy cavalry, like the Companions and Antigonus’ bodyguard, so it is probable they were heavy horse rather than skirmishers.
The troops that we know definitely were light cavalry in Alexander’s invasion army were the scouts (prodromoi), numbering 900. These were troopers whose only protection was a helmet and their offensive weapon was a very long spear described as a sarissa. This was presumably longer than the 12-foot spear carried by the other heavy horsemen, or it would not be so particularly specified. But practicality would surely mean it was shorter than the phalangite’s pike which as a two-handed weapon would not have been feasible for horsemen, who needed at least one hand to control their steed. Though, of course, later cataphracti (completely armoured cavalry) used a two-handed kontos (barge pole) and this is attested for Parthians, Sassanians and even Romans, these were very heavy horse expected to move forward in steady and irresistible manner, not to perform the kinds of agile manoeuvres expected of light horse. These prodromoi may have come from Macedonia or Thrace but other units definitely came from the ‘barbarian’ marches, like the Paeonians and Odrysians whose rulers had been reduced to subject allies of Greater Macedonia. The role of all these troops was to act as scouts and skirmishers, a sword would have been carried but only as an arm of last resort. The long spear was intended to keep enemies off so they would not need to fight hand-to-hand or require the protection of body armour. What is interesting is that these troops are little mentioned after the Macedonians had got well into Asia. The invaders discovered and co-opted troop types that did these jobs better, most particularly the horse archers they came across on the central Asian steppe.
Mercenary light horse are not mentioned as going over to Asia but are heard of by the siege of Halicarnassus and are frequently noted as active in Alexander’s wars. They are described at Gaugamela as providing a screen in front of part of the right and left wings; acting as the cavalry equivalent of infantry skirmishers. But a good number, up to 800, were killed off in an ambush by Scythians near the Polytimetus River in Sogdia, in 329 BC. Though 500 of this troop type are mentioned in Antigonus’ battle line at Paraetacene, what relationship they had to the mercenary horse utilized by Alexander is unclear and we can really say little specific of the national origin or equipment of these men.
Though the Diadochi war machines were created by the fusion of European and Asiatic power, money and techniques, the Alexandrine core remained the same. But, of all the arms concerned, the cavalry arm saw most change. This should be no surprise as Asia had always been the home of celebrated hors
emen. Alexander encountered not only formidable exemplars of the kind of cavalry with which he was familiar in the cavaliers of Persia, Media and Bactria, but also light horse archers typical of the peoples of the steppe. Before reaching inner Asia, he would have had little experience of this sort of warrior but, once encountered, he clearly liked what he saw and lost little time in incorporating many of them into his military caravan. Arrian mentions ‘Scythian cavalry, and the mounted archers of the Daae’ as a main component, 1,000 to 1,500 strong, of Alexander’s task force as he heads off to confront Porus at the Hydaspes and, indeed, these were the first to strike a blow against the Indian monarch’s army.21 Under the Diadochi we look in vain for troops described as Scythian or Daae, though, if these actual men were not kept on in large regiments, some may have remained in the retinues of the satraps who gained control of the regions near their steppe homelands. The horse archers we do know of are recorded usually as Parthians and are often brigaded with Median light horse.
The horsemen who had initially ridden out of Europe were fairly few in number, perhaps 5,000 all told, though by Gaugamela they had increased to 7,000. But, with Persia fallen, Scythia visited and India part-traversed, the invaders recruited non-European horsemen, who remained formidable and sometimes decisive throughout the Diadochi wars. The Median, Persian, Bactrian and Sogdian aristocrats who had initially fought Alexander, now joined him and stayed on with his Successors in some numbers over the years to come. The best of them were well-armoured in scale corselets, helmets and even with armour covering their legs. Their horses were big and strong and we know, in the era of Xenophon, that some of them were protected by armoured bards of cloth faced by scale armour. It is unlikely that this was discarded when the Macedonian kings took over, as 100 years later the Seleucids were fielding cataphracti wearing full body and horse protection, making such a breach in continuity unlikely. The most useful of these troops would have stayed on and travelled west, with their conquering commander, before, on his death, joining the entourages of the satraps who took over their homelands. They were recruited and fought again in the great battles, particularly those of 317/316 BC, and after these combats some would have been demobilized or gone back home with their satrapal commanders, but enough would have stayed in the main army. Others would undoubtedly have fought for and against Seleucus, as he first established himself and then went on to fight wars in east Iran, India and Anatolia.