The Granikos battle

[agesilaos]

Whilst trawling through Arrian to compile all his uses of military terminology I, not unnaturally, came to the battle of the Granicus and careful reading of the text has led me to think that the reconstructions offered by Fuller and Hammond for instance are seriously flawed.
I will have to concentrate on HammondGÇÖs (ATG King, Commander and Statesman) reconstruction as I have mislaid my copy of Fuller.
Hammond has extended the epithet GÇÿmakranGÇÖ from the Persian cavalry line to all the forces involved but Arrian (all refs to bk I) xiv 4 GÇÿetachthesan de ten men hippon parateinantes toi potamoi kata ten ochthen epi phalanga makran,GǪGÇÖ clearly means that GÇÿthe cavalry battle-line (phalanga) was drawn up in extended order (makran) on the bank parallel to the riverGÇÖ the infantry are drawn up behind them, GÇÿtous de pezous katopin ton hipponGÇÖ with no mention that they are in extended order, which would be suicidal facing either cavalry or another phalanx in close order. Nowhere does it imply that Alexander is also in extended order.
Now what does extended order mean for the Persian cavalry? Hammond thinks it means a two metre frontage per file 20,000 divided by 16 (his depth for the cavalry) divided into 2,500m his frontage for the battle. This is the text book frontage for psiloi but to be able to manouevre freely there would have to be a horses length between files so that they can turn to a flank, this would give a fontage per file of 3m . Nor does a depth of 16 relate to anything Persian, whose systems were decimal so 10 seems more reasonable, however there were two lines one on the lip of the bank and one on the open ground behind, thus 1000 files x 3m gives 3km . the mercenaries far from equalling this frontage would occupy only 20.000 divided by 8 X 1m or 2.5 km which would halve if they went into compact order, as they may have at the close of the battle thus allowing the Macedonians purchase upon the high ground.
The Macedonian line comprises 1,800 Companions, 8 deep not ten (Polybios says this is the deepest that it is useful for cavalry to deploy) on a frontage of 1.5m which gives 337.5m these are mirrored on the left by the Thessallians to give 675m there are 900 prodromoi adding 170m to give 745 add in 600 allied cav and we get 820m. The infantry line consisted of three chiliarchia of hypaspists and six phalanx units or 12,000 men sixteen deep on a 1m frontage or 750m plus 7,000 Thracians only 8 deep adding 875m making a total of 2445m.

[agesilaos]

The action is opened by the advance of SocratesGÇÖ squadron supported by GÇÿ ton pezon mian taxinGÇÖ which naturally gets translated as battalion but clearly refers to the archers and Agrianes who are the foot assigned to this vanguard and must equate to the 500 foot allocated to Hegelochos at xiii 2 .
The place in the Persian line where this attacked falls is of interest; it is where the GÇÿkratiston tes Persikes hipponGǪoi te Memnonos paides kai autos MemnonGǪGÇÖ xv 2 ie where the best Persian cavalry and the sons of Memnon and Memnon himself were posted. Traditionally this would be in the centre of the line a suspicion that is supported by the fact that the Persian collapse began in the centre, GÇÿos de to meson enededokei autois pareppegnyto de kai ta eph ekatera tes hippousGÇÖ xvi 1 But when the centre had given way then the cavalry wings were also broken; and coming just after GÇÿegklinousi tautei proton, he Alexandros proekinduneuen.GÇÖ They gave way first at the spot where Alexander headed the line it seems certain that the initial attack fell on the centre and not on the Persian left flank. Hammond posits that AlexanderGÇÖs attack was not sucessful and that the infantry centre defeats the Persian centre but this is at odds with xvii 9 where the battle is referred to as GÇÿtes hippomachiasGÇÖ ie a cavalry battle. Hammond has been misled I think by xv 4 GÇÿkai ev toutoi allai epGÇÖ allais ton taxeon tois Makedosi dieainon ou chalepos edeGÇÖ and meanwhile the Macedonians, battalion after battalion, kept crossing, a task now not so difficult (Brunt'GÇÖ translation) but taxeon refers not to the phalanx but to the cavalry, taxis meaning unit not anything more technical. The next sentence describes the fighting and it is GÇÿapo ton hippon he macheGÇÖ the struggle was on horseback and this must refer back to the units who are now crossing.
How can this have happened when the battle lines are only 500m different? I think first that AlexanderGÇÖs left outflanked the Persian right which would lead to a thinning from the Persian centre, that the centre was massed from the left effectively preventing the left wing from falling on AlexanderGÇÖs flank, the Persians , in any case not wishing to leave the bank. And that rather than being in line the right wing cavalry were deployed in column behind each other and opposite the Persian centre. The point of contact will have been somewhat to the left due to countering the flow of the stream, This neccessitating Mithridates ride across the rear of his fro

[smittysmitty]

Hi Karl,for what its worth, I have a deep suspicion regarding the reality of the battles the sources write about. Seems a predisposition with the effectivness of the companion cavalry, no doubt they were an effective unit, however I've always felt the sources glorify and attempt to contribute more than was realistically possible to the unit. The significance of the phalanx always plays second fiddle and rarely gets the lime light.To my knowledge, cavalry have always needed space to build up charge speed and once the initial impact of the sarissa led cavalry was over, they were not much chop!, infact had its opposition not broken after initial impact, realistically a javelin based cavalry would have it all over them.
Yet its alway the companions that seem to be victorious and win the battle.I'm more inclined to believe this information made for great reading 2,000 years ago but should not be taken too seriously. More likey than not, particularly at the Granicus, the infantry methodically moved across the river and systematically wiped out the opposition. The Persian cavalry were unlikely to have been able to prevent the infantry line from crossing, being short of having shooters available.
I have nothing to support what I'm saying of course, but I still maintain the battle sequences ( as written )are a far cry from what really happened.I think also the likes of Hammond and Fuller et.al. attempt to make science out of someones poetic license.. A bit of common sence doesn't go astray!anyhow!
just my thoughts.Cheers!

[Thalestris]

Illuminating question, motivating me to re-focus on that battle, again. I recently purchased (to add to the pile) a highly illustrated text titled "Alexander 334-323BC: Conquest of the Persian Empire" by John Warry, published by Osprey Publishing. It discusses and provides topographical illustrations/details of Alexander's principle battles. Regarding the Granikos Battle, according to Warry's examination, (having divided the battle into three phases)I deduce that Warry inclines his analysis to Fuller and Hammond (naturally listed in the bibliography), and to his own text "Warfare in the Classical World". The inquiries and hypotheses, therefore, remain unanswered and with variables, as far as I can assist here.Smitty, your answer persuades me. Now I am wrangling with the same said question:-)Cheers!Thalestris

[davej]

Karl,As usual you have raised an interesting question. I agree with most of what you have said but will have to check my books when I get home on a couple of others. If you need Fullers book I can copy any bits you need, I have no problem with that. I am interested to know if you think ATG used Sarissas for this battle. I have my own opinion I am just wondering what yours is. I will check my sources and then make an informed response.

[agesilaos]

In my humble opinion Alexander's phalanx and hypaspists were invariably armed with the sarissa at the pitched battles, although they may have exchanged these for javelins when pursuing hillsmen; on these occaisions they are referred to as the nimblest of the phalanx, which is often mis-translated as the lightest armed.I think Smitty is advocating the abandonment of history; whilst our sources are not complete and alexandro-centric Arrian at least is based on good contempory sources and Ptolemy definitely knew how effective the Companion cavalry was since he fought in their ranks. The point about impetus is moot as the battle of Granicus shows, since Arrian describes not a glorious charge but a shoving match where the length of the Macedonian weapons and their skill in weilding them win the day.

[marcus]

Hi Karl,You said: "on these occaisions they are referred to as the nimblest of the phalanx, which is often mis-translated as the lightest armed."That might well be right, but I do seem to remember reading somewhere (and I wish I could remember where), that the hypaspists (at least) sometimes dispensed with their usual armour (cuirasses and boots) in order to engage in more guerilla-style tactics.This might have been supposition based on the mistranslation of "nimble" for "lightly-armed" - I don't know - is it a chicken and egg case? :-)All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi all,
It is a credit to modern scholars, enabling us to become familiar with the literal works of antiquity; however this transliteration alone does not/should not constitute history.As to the memoirs of Ptolemy and 'others', and the reproduction of these works by Arrian, one need not think to hard as to why inaccuracies or distortions of events may have occured.I have no doubt that the Companions and ATG partook in the battle of the Granicus, as indeed they did at all of the major set battles.
I am also likely to accept that the Companions engaged in a relatively stationary melee against opposition similarly poised. The suggestion that this type of battle, a "shoving match where the length of the Macedonian weapons and their skill in weilding them win the day"!, is precisely where I beg to differ.The closness of the opposition ( to my mind ) would have rendered the sarissa based cavalry useless, (unless theres some magical way of manouvering a 9 foot spear)! Short of knocking each other off their horses with such unwieldy weapons, I think we have to assume the sword was the prefered weapon at this time.The chances pf a stationary cavalrly withstanding an infantry thrust ( albeit a disordered movment due to the river ) seems highly unlikely, and in my (unqualified) opinion were the driving force behind a fleeing Persian cavalry. I'm more inclined to believe the Companions victory was an isolated victory and more or less came about as a result of other successes achieved on the field by the infantry.In conclusion, it must be remembered that Arrians work is focused on ATG and not the Makedones. Alexander for reasons fairly obvious, must take the lime light and Arrian does not fail to provide.
just my thoughtscheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,I haven't spent much time studying the Granicus, but one thing in your post struck a chord.We do know, for example, that (a) Alexander's spear broke at some point in the charge and he called for another, but his groom's spear had also broken. It was Dimaratos who provided the king with a fresh one; and (b) that when Rhosakes (I think) was threatening Alexander, Kleitos chopped his arm off with a sword.Therefore, my interpretation is that spears, naturally, were used initially, but obviously they were very likely to break and therefore be rendered useless. After that, of course, they would draw swords and fight with them. So I see the Companions using their spears in the initial shock, perhaps allowing them to gain the eastern bank of the Granicus; but after that it was a shoving battle, just as you say, where swords were the weapons... most of the spears having been shattered by that point, anyway.All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

I agree Markus. Infantry could be provided from the rear with new spears, once the initial ones were broken. Cavalry did not have this luxury (in most cases) and they had to continue fighting with swords.

[agesilaos]

But Alexander's spear breaks when he encounters the Persian re-inforcements under Mithridates, he has already defeated their frontline. Also the fact that he calls for another spear surely shows that the cavalry too could replenish their arms from a rear rank, though I suspect that this is only practical in a static fight.

[marcus]

Hi Karl,Good point.Is it not the case, however, that the cavalry spears were double-tipped, so that if the spear broke they could carry on fighting with the other end? Perhaps what happened is that Alexander had effectively used both ends of his spear and was therefore left without a sharp stick.Quite why he didn't then reach for his sword is the thing that puzzles me!All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

I can't imagine a static cavalry fight! In my mind, the king would have some bodyguards entrusted with the task of assisting him and probably one of their tasks would be to renew his equipment. The sword was a much less efficient weapon and a spear would be much more welcomed.PS
The back end of the spear carried another (smaller) spike that was called "sauroter" which means "lizard killer". It was used to balance the weight of the front, to nail the spear to the ground and only as a secondary weapon.
Btw, have a look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3401449.stm
The Greeks had a habit for finding humorus names for objects. For example "Pyramis" was the name for Athenian small-sized breads. But they also gave this name to the pyramids
Same thing with the Obelisk ("obelias" is the small meat skewer)...
(Sorry, I'm getting off-topic

[davej]

I kind of agree with you but about the armourment of the Phalanx and Cavalry during GÇ£pitched battlesGÇ¥ however I donGÇÖt think you could really describe Granicus as a pitched battle in the conventional sense. It was more like a skirmish on a grand scale, the only part of the battle that was really pitched was the conducted after the battle proper against the surrendering Greek Mercenaries. I am sure others will disagree and they are of course entitled to their opinion.I have been looking briefly at Hammond, Fuller and Arrian to find out where you got your measures. I am a bit confused, but as ArrianGÇÖs account is also very confused I think this is understandable. My opinion on the battle is different to that of Minor Markle but is based on some of his theory from AJA 1977/1978. I really can not see how the infantry could have used Sarissas whilst crossing the river, it is just impossible to run and maintain formation across a river. Secondly the bloody things are useless for close quarter fighting, which all the sources agree was the order of the day. So we can discount the use of Sarissa by the infantry at Granicus, except maybe against the mercenaries in the second battle. I would suggest that it is impossible for them to have been used for the first phase of the battle. Having played around with the weapons first hand I can tell you they more unruly then you can possibly imagine.As for the cavalry using them, I sincerely doubt they could have been used, particularly when you look at the dynamics of the battle. Arrian account is a melee more then anything else. The fact that Alexander could be struck on the head by Rhoesaces after stabbing Mithradates in the face makes it impossible that it could have been a Sarissa which requires around 2.5m of turning circle at the front an the rear. Which renders it useless for melee. As far as butt spikes go I think the term is actually Soter which means saviour, not Sauter (Lizard). The cruciform but spike found by Andronicos would be absolutely useless as a weapon. It is very pointy and narrow at the tip but is not tapered enough to be used as a weapon, the design would stop it being driven in more then about 3 or 4 inches. The design I believe is actually to hold I upright in the ground when it is not being held by the rider. Another factor you have not considered is how could anybody on a horse turn the weapon around to use the spike in the heat of battle. I wonGÇÖt say it is impossible but it would be nea

[yiannis]

Dave, just a small correction regarding the "Sauroter".Soter does indeed means "saviour" but saura means "lizard" (e.g. Dinosaur) and the name of the object is "Sauroter"...