Mounted Battalion Commanders (pt 1)

[smittysmitty]

Shortly after the trial of Philotas, Amyntas, son of Andromenes a close friend of Philotas's is brought forward to justify his innocence of all incriminating affairs in front of king and assembly. One such account relates to a dispute between Antiphanes - clerk of the cavalry and Amyntas. It is said; Amyntas had in his possession ten horses, of which Antiphanes commandeered eight, which was somewhat less than an amicable arrangement.Most interestingly in his defense, Amyntas retains the last two mounts and states the following, (Curtius) [7.1.34]...'I was obliged to hold onto them unless I was prepared to *fight on foot*.' My initial interpretation of this line was that, the horses were used by Amyntas more so for transportation purposes rather than actual use in battle. But having dwelled on the line for some time, it appeared straight forward, the horses being commandeered, were so by the *cavalry clerk* Antiphanes, implying these were no nags, to be used for transportation and menial tasks but, horses belonging to the deceased enemy, and were battle trained. This then, in support of the above mentioned statement made by Amyntas, 'unless I am prepared to fight on foot' clearly is evidence that infantry commanders went into battle on mounts.Infantry commanders on horseback, allowing increased battlefield perception, has tactical merit, however, it would seem unnecessary for an infantry body that is so reliant on maintaining a continuous unbroken line, that did little more than move straight ahead. Furthermore, and most challenging of questions was, where indeed would an infantry commander on horseback fit into the phalanx lineup?

[smittysmitty]

cont...It would seem highly unlikely he would be at the head of the battalion, short of being pierced by his own men, this would seem a highly improbable place to be. Subsequent to this, I thought perhaps beside the phalanx, but this also presents a problem in that potentially a gap between battalions, in the event the commander was lost in battle, was a vulnerability that would not have been allowed to exist. Then there was the possibility of the commander being placed in a hollow, within the battalion, but this also seems unrealistic and more likely to be an obstacle in the event front rank troops had fallen and needed to be replaced from the rear.So then, where would a mounted infantry commander be found on the battlefield?

[dean]

Hello, I must admit that I admire your researching this. My extremely restricted knowledge of this branch of study in the Alexander story will be of little help. I must re-read Arrian again which is where I think the real answers are to be found regarding military/tactical questions.
My instant gut reaction to your last question would initially be well behind the front line. An image of a front line filled with massive sarrissas instantly comes to mind. However I am curious as to how Stone is going to bring to life the Gaugamela/ Issos episodes.
Granikus for me was a different kettle of fish as was Hydaspes- both were in my humble opinion using a heavier use of mounted cavalry especially for the crossing of both rivers.
But anyway back to your question- I hope someone else can supply the missing pieces for you,
Best regards,
Dean.

[amyntoros]

Smitty, I have the most minimal knowledge of battle tactics, but, coincidentally, I have been fighting my way recently through an article called Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great, by Minor M. Markle II, Department of Classics and Ancient History, The University of New England, Australia. And I do mean fighting my way through it - there are pages of computations on the length and weight of sarissas alone; subheadings on the Small Macedonian Telamon Shield, The Macedonian Hoplite Panoply, The Flexibility of the Macedonian Army, etc. Markle says something about cavalry and infantry fighting together: "Cavalry assaulting infantry could employ the wedge formation either with the aid of or without the aid of hamippoi, a term used by historians and writers on tactics to designate infantrymen, each of whom fought paired with a horseman." Later he says, "At the battle of Granicus, Alexander employed light infantry as hamippoi. Arrian reports (I.16.I) '...and they (the Persians) suffered much harm at the hands of the light infantry which was mixed with cavalry.' Pollus (I.132) states that the combination of a heavily armed cavalryman with a light-armed hoplite was an invention of Alexander. Finally, Alexander also employed hamippoi at Gaugamela. Arrian (3.14.2) writes: 'And making a wedge of the Companion Cavalry and of the infantry phalanx stationed beside them, he led them at a run...towards Darius himself...' The infantry stationed beside the Companions at Gaugamela were the agema of the hypaspists and the other hypaspists (3.11.8-9), and these foot soldiers were armed as hoplites. There is also archaeological evidence for the use of hamippoi during the reign of Alexander and afterwards: it is thus that I would interpret the Macedonian hoplites fighting mingled with the cavalry on the Alexander Sarcophagus and the Macedonian hoplites paired with Macedonian horsemen on the Monument of Aemulius Paullus which commemorates his victory over Perseus at Pydna in 168 B.C."To my militarily uneducated way of thinking, I assume that if the infantry and cavalry could fight intermixed, then it might not have been that unusual to have an infantry commander on horseback (though not neccessarily with the infantry armed with sarissas). The article - 26 pages with notes and illustrations - is in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic times - Studies in the History of Art, Vol. 10. National Gallery of Art, Washington.

[amyntoros]

The article - 26 pages with notes and illustrations - is in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic times - Studies in the History of Art, Vol. 10. National Gallery of Art, Washington. (Not exactly the place one would expect to find it!) It's out of print, but there are used copies available on Amazon for around $8 and up.I have no idea if this was of any help whatsoever! :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[agesilaos]

It is important to name your sources; Smitty is using the full account of Curtius VII i 32 here which fits neatly with the abbreviated account of Arrian III 27 . However, Curtius is a creative writer and we need not take all his details as deriving from his sources.Amyntas son of Andromenes was a taxiarch as is shown at Arr III xi 9, where his brother Simmias commands his unit while he is away recruiting, II vii 4 at Issos, I xiv 2 Granikos. Yet Curtius imagines him a Guard VII i 18 whether a hypaspist or a somatophylax it is unclear but either way clearly wrong. The detail of Antiphanes complaint may be historical but I would have to check the Latin and the web Curtius is down, but assuming that it is there is no reason to suppose that Amyntas actually said '...lest I wish to fight on foot.' this is just the obvious argument to allow a rhetorical contrast between the soldier Amyntas and the Clerk Antiphanes. Much of this speech reads as an apologia for knowing Sejanus as Philotas does not seem to have had the influence imputed to him here and since Amyntas ,Arr I vii 2, already commanded a phalanx at Thebes there seems precious little time for Philotas' favour to be gained and to become effective, in fact his brigading with Perdikkas whom we know to be a new taxiarch since he was a hypaspist at Philip's assassination may point to Amyntas being a veteran set to watch the new boy. Shortly, these details exist for rhetorical reasons and too much weight should not attach to them.

[agesilaos]

Apologies Smitty you did name your source, but having read all the other posts I had forgotten. The Lacus text was back up so I checked it. Antiphanes title is 'scriba equitum' which I don't think corresponds to a Roman rank and is therefore probably from his source though 'grammatea ton hippon'is otherwise unattested but there is 'grammatea ton xenon' at III v 3.Amyntas is called 'armiger' and armed with a 'lancea', Curtius uses the former as a catch all for any Guards and lancea could be an infantry or cavalry spear but it is never used of a sarissa which would be the weapon of a phalanx commander, so he is clearly confused over Amyntas' rank, possibly reconciling the tradition that he found in his source about the horses by trying to make him a cavalryman.

[smittysmitty]

Hi Karl,I respect and appreciate your ability to read the 'sources' in their original form, so much so, that it inspires me to want to do so also. Thank you for that! :)Your point regarding 'lancia' not referrin to a sarissa is probably correct and appropriate, for indeed if Amyntas was a mounted infantry officer, he surely would not be carrying pike.With my limited understanding of Latin, 'armiger' means armour bearer (I think), and perhaps relates to nothing more than than a rank of officer. I did gloss over the latin text of Curtius, and the latin form for bodyguard/soatophylakes appears as 'corpus custodi' and refrences to the Hypaspist usually took on the form of either Agema or Argyaspids.However, as I said, I glossed over the text and am prepared to accept what you say as accurate.I can't then explain why this discription of a 'guards uniform' is mentioned, perhaps an oversight or maybe even a confusion with Demetrius of the bodyguard who also was on trial? But to assume Curtius is totally confused and unaware of Amyntas' rank as taxiarch, I simply can't accept. Curtius is well aware of Amyntas' rank, an observation that is simply drawn from his preceding chapters dealing with various battles.Whats more important however, is the willingness of most, including myself for many years, to pass over this narrative as nothing more than a 'rhetorical contrast' between 'officer and subbordinate.
Curtius would not have included it in his narrative if it were, and hardly something that would have been brought to the attention of the king.The incident in question is more than a heated argument, rather it pertains to,in my opinion, military protocol and a dispute whereby both military and civil codes of law have been transgressed and as a result have been brought before the king for judgement.Curtius[7.1.15] 'Antiphanes, the clerk to the cavalry, had instructed Amyntas to follow the normal practice and give some of his horses to men who had lost theirs, but Amyntas had arrogantly replied that if Antiphanes did not drop that plan he would soon know with whom he was dealing.'The crucial word in the above statement is *instructed*! Antiphanes, *instructed* Amyntas surrender the horses; implying he (Antiphanes) was empowered to make such a demand. We may assume that the king himself gave this empowerment to Antiphanes and that a military code/law had been instituted allowing him to act accordingly. This code was applicable r

[smittysmitty]

This code was applicable regardless of ones rank, however Amyntas had used his office, perhaps even his relationship with Philotas and even the king to evade what was required of him. It is for this reason, this incident is presented before the king, his insubordination and breaking of the law. To further support the existance of a military code and Antiphanes empowerment, it should be remembered, Amyntas did indeed surrender eight of the ten horses,albeit somewhat reluctantly.Amyntas clearly knows he has broken the law and attempts to argue in his defense by introducing what may have been a common civil law amongst the Makedones. i.e, by right of possession the horses were his. Amyntas argues [7.1.33]'Indeed, it is not clear who is guilty, the man keeping back the horses or the man asking for them - except that the man refusing to surrender his own property has a stronger case than the man demanding someone else's.'
sorry about the length of this, and damn, I had to retype the rest of the post
The above statement surely has no place in the theatre of war, it may have been applicable to wares and riches that had been looted throughout the campaign, but the possession of horses, wepons etc must have remained property of king and state. It is an attempt, reliant on his relationship to the king, to pardon his obvious insubordination by rekindling a law that was applicable in a non military state.

[smittysmitty]

sorry! there was more to come, but I cant' be bothered rewriting this post for the third time LoL!my apologise for the length of the post:(

[agesilaos]

First let us set this passage in context; Amyntas and his brothers are accused of involvement with Philotas, the case rests on the fact that they had secret meetings with Philotas the day before he was uncovered, they showed a nervous desire to guard Alexander out of turn, and their brother Polemon had fled on PhilotasGÇÖ arrest. The refusal to hand over the horses is a subsidiary instance of their character.CurtiusGÇÖ story dovetails with ArrianGÇÖs much abbreviated tale quite well, III 27 I ff GÇÿThey (Ptolemy and Aristoboulos) also say that Amyntas son of Andromenes was brought to trial at the same time, together with, Polemon Attalos and Simmias, his brothers, on the charge that they too had joined the conspiracy against Alexander as loyal comrades of Philotas. Moreover the conspiracy seemed more credible too the masses, because Polemon, one of AmyntasGÇÖ brothers, had deserted to the enemy as soon as Philotas was arrested. However, Amyntas at least with his other brothers stood his trial, made a vigorous defence before the Macedonians, and was acquitted of the charge; and the moment he was acquitted, he asked leave to go and bring Polemon back again to Alexander; the Macedonians agreed.GÇÖSubstantially this is CurtiusGÇÖ story, only he heightens the drama by having the hearing take place on ground still wet with Alexander LynkestesGÇÖ blood and by having Polemon dragged in while the trial is proceeding to be vilified by his brothers. The question then arises did Curtius actually get his story from Ptolemy?As I mentioned before Aristophanes title GÇÿscriba equisGÇÖ is not a Roman rank, these officers were called GÇÿstratoresGÇÖ but is a translation of GÇÿgrammatea de epi ton hipponGÇÖ which may be imputed to have existed by comparison with the GÇÿgrammatea de epi ton xenonGÇÖ of Arr III 5 iii. This title must go back to Ptolemy or Aristoboulos as they alone preserved the Macedonian technical terms found in Arrian, all the other writers being Greeks. So Curtius is using Ptolemy, whom we know him to have read? No, he is using a writer who has dramatised PtolemyGÇÖs scenario and even improved upon it, supplying speeches for the protagonists, which Curtius has re-worked to give a more contemporary relevance (I still think it reads as an apologia for being a friend of Sejanus in the 30GÇÖs AD) and re-jigging the events for effect. This suits Kleitarchos and is further evidence that he wrote later than Ptolemy.The passage is important but must be treated with care being

[agesilaos]

The passage is important but must be treated with care being a three-way amalgam. The least reliable section will be the speeches.I believe that Ptolemy mentioned the supporting charges including that of Antiphanes whose rank he gave. Arrian omits the details since this is a sideshow for him whereas Kleitarchos saw the rhetorical possibilities and Curtius further improved on them.The story of Amyntas desiring to guard Alexander must be KleitarchosGÇÖ invention and leads to Curtius making Amyntas a guard GÇÿarmigerGÇÖ frequently means hypaspist; also his audience may be reminded of another Guard who had to explain his friendships; Macro.By the way long messages are sometimes inevitable!

[smittysmitty]

This unfortunately is one of those cases where translation is paramount to understanding/interpreting the sources, of which unfortunately I am at a disadvantage due to my lack of ability in reading ancient Greek and Latin¦Æ-+.The translation I use for Arrian is by Aubrey De Selincourt, and judging by his account, I make there to be a significant difference to how the passage reads with that of which you quote. My view of this passage is that neither Ptolemy nor Aristobulus make mention of Amnytas-í-ª trial, and Arrian is familiar with the story through an unmentioned source. The passage reads,[3.27.3]-í-ªIt is said that Amyntas, son of Andromenes, and his brothers, Polemon, Attalus, and Simmias, were brought to trial at the same time for complicity in the plot against Alexander, on the grounds of the closeness of their association with Philotas-í-ª-íK The commencement of this passage *It is said*, leaves little doubt in my mind that neither of Arrian-í-ªs two main sources are used here and perhaps even incorporates a disbelieving connotation to the passage. Admittedly the passage you present, begins with *They say*, unfortunately because I-í-ªm not familiar with the text you are using, I can-í-ªt begin to reflect what *they say* refers to! (Ptolemy/Aristobulus or some unmentioned source?) Arrian-í-ªs brief account of the Philotas trial and that of Amyntas suggests to me his objective nature forces him to make mention of these incidents, however he has no wish to taint the character of his principal subject, Alexander, and as such does little more than to make references to the events. Another concern, Arrian places, considerably later to the conspiracy trials, the arrest and presumably death of Demetrius of the -í-ÑBodyguard-í-ª amongst the Ariaspians. This to my mind is almost inconceivable, considering the accounts given to us regarding Demetrius-í-ª supposed involvement in the plot. I do agree, Curtius loves his speeches, and you are right to point out, it is more the incidents rather than dialogue we are to take notice of, and it is for this reason I raise the Antiphanes *incident* rather than the rhetoric associated with it. I don-í-ªt think we can all together dismiss the events Curtius mentions, and although his rhetoric is sometimes unbearable, the events he speaks of do appear to slot in nicely together, unlike some other writers.
cheers!

[agesilaos]

I use Brunt's translation for Loeb, since it has parallel Greek text and I've lost my Penguin!At III 26 i '...kai legei Ptolemaios kai Aristoboulos...' Both Ptolemy and Aristoboulos say..
At III 26 ii 'Ptolemaios de ho Lagou legei..' there follows Ptolemy's account of the Philotas Affair. I take III 27 i to refer back to 26 i and thus 'Legousi de kai..' they also say = Pt & AThe usual phrase for other authors is 'kai legousin eisin' it is also said ,oratio obliqua,I think.

[Link]

At III 26 i '...kai legei Ptolemaios kai Aristoboulos...' The usual phrase for other authors is 'kai legousin eisin' it is also said ,oratio obliqua,I think.Hi All,
I understand why you are all confused.Try reading it as REKEI, REKOUSIN (-they said, they spoke, from reku/rechi - i said, recited, reckoned.) Read in Macedonian and make sense out the old texts, they have been subjected to more greek inspired twists and moves than Chubby Chekker.