Macedonian army rotation

[agesilaos]

Unfortunately I have a couple of exams looming for which I must cram, so I cannot yet respond to all of Xenophon's points but will separate the hoplites from the pikemen and post the early stuff on the 'Off-topic Board' if he has no objection.

If the best exposition of the 'Legion vs Phalanx' debate is to say it is a waste of time, words fail me. It is perfectly possible to isolate organisational and tactical factors from those others mentioned by Xenophon and thus pass judgement on the two systems; though I would agree that other factors have alot to contribute to success in battle, generalship is about using the tools one is given and if one wishes to pass judgement on the generals of antiquity one needs to consider the capabilities of the systems used by their forces and the enemy.

Yes, no Hellenistic kingdom went over to a wholly legion system, but the reasons are not hard to find; the Seleukids had ceased to exist as a major power 24 years after Magnesia, and the Ptolemies, as Roman allies, could call on the real deal rather than energetically reform, in both cases internecine strife destabilised the state.

But to all those phalangophiles, clinging to their dreams of victories unwon, I pose one question, can a phalanx fight in woods, mountains or even on broken ground? The answer is no. This does not mean that the legions were forever victorious, even against phalanx armies, Asculum and Beneventum were defeats but thereafter there may have been a couple of stalemates but the picture is one of unbroken defeat for the phalanxes (Kynokephalai, Pydna, Thermopylai, Magnesia, Korinth, Orchomenos, Chaironaia, Zeleia and probably more).

Given this, the question arises, why did the Antigonid phalanx put up so much better a show than the easterners'? Magnesia was good phalanx ground, it may well have been the same site as Korupedion in 280BC. The answer probably comes down to morale; the phalanx failed to attack because it lacked the 'will to combat'.

Ages back in the thread someone suggested that the story of the Greeks being shocked by gladius wounds was Roman propaganda due to Livy; I don't dispute that this is certainly possible but I would like to point out that the scenario is a very Hellenistic one, viz a general whose strategem backfires, Polybios was no fan of Philip V, so it is equally possible that Livy found the story ready made.

I do agree that the debate is frequently otiose with people adducing wargames rules as evidence! Some twit once suggested that because he had defeated a Norman army re-fighting Hastings by charging off Senlac ridge with the whole Saxon army Harold II would have won had he done the same, the result would actually have been to repeat the destruction of those Saxons who did pursue the Bretons on a larger scale. However, it is a worthwhile exercise when conducted with reference to the actual evidence; this is, after all how military systems change (not always advance ) .

I'll get back on the Pontic campaigns, though I dare say Xenophon will beat me to the punch.

[Hypaspist]

Agesilaos, would you mind if I asked you how long you have studied ancient history? Gathering from your "exam" comment, I take it you are a student or a teacher? Still, I get the impression you are around Xeno's age?

This does not mean that the legions were forever victorious, even against phalanx armies, Asculum and Beneventum were defeats

Get a little unsure of what you mean here; am I to understand that you score the victories of Asculum and Beneventum on the Phalanx side of the ledger? The reason for hazarding this guess is because you mentioned Asculum as being a victory. The battle of Asculum was a victory: for Pyrrhus. Beneventum, however, was for all intents and purposes a draw - at best. If you, in actual fact, did mean to ascribe the `victories´ to Pyrrhus, then you forgot about Heracleia!

You mentioned Zeleia. Which battle was that? You're not talking about Granicus are you?

[agesilaos]

Of course I meant Herakleia rather than Beneventum, doh! Yes I count these as victories for the pike phalanx. Zeleia was Caesar's battle against Pharnakes II of Pontus, actually just Zela it seems; it was the occaision of the oft quoted, 'veni, vidi, vici.'

I am 51, so a generation younger than Xenophon, and have been studying ancient history since I was about eight, having caught the bug after watching '300 Spartans' with Richard Egan as Leonidas and Ralph Richardson as Themistokles, a reasonable romp for 1962 quaint rather than camp like the modern '300'. I graduated in Ancient History in 1984. I am currently studying for an ITC qualification as employers look askance at my retro wax tablets and stylus

[Hypaspist]

I'm impressed. I'm 34, live in sweden. Compared to you and Xenophon, I'm still wet behind the ears. I've been into ancient history since 2003.
My foray into this endlessly fascinating topic got triggered when I happened upon an article saying Oliver Stone was making a movie about Alexander the Great. Alexander who? Certainly I had head the name before, but who was he, when was he alive? The name rose above any other in terms recognizing, but any closer details escaped me. So I started browsing him on the internet, one thing led to another, until I finally bought Arrian's Biography. From then on I was hooked. I think I have close to 20 books on him presently, not to mention many other on antiquity in general.

As an aside, I have to share with you guys what I wrote in another forum a couple of years ago... I just remembered it, so I located it and did a little `cut-n-paste´.

Do you remember the Gaugamela battle sequence where Vangelis' sweeping, crushingly beautiful angelic score accompanies the scene and washes over it as Alexander's men lower their sarissas in sequence, and Dareius sceptically watches as Alexander elegantly and totally unexpectedly rides off from the battlefield... it's enough to make a grown man cry... and why? Because to me it's the ultimate symbol of accomplishing the unaccomplishable and surmounting the insurmountable in life! I'm not talking about war here, I'm not trying to glorify war here, I'm talking about the greater battlefield called life, I'm referring to how it serves to inspire us not to cower away from life or challenges, but to meet them head-on with our lavishly plumed helmets and with our capes fluttering in the wind as we defiantly look up and beyond the horizon while tightly holding the reins to our eager horses...

Kind of moving, kind of camp, kind of naive... kind of true. Reading it again makes me realize how I meant every word of it.
You'll probably dismiss it with a scoff or a shake of the head, but I'm glad I re-discovered and shared it with you. But I doubt battle hardened veterans such as yourselfs, Xeno and Agesilaos, will take any soft notice of it, eh?

[Paralus]

That scene, in Stone's film, was quite ridiculous. The Macedonian army marches forward and right and Alexander, along with his cavalry, takes off for Babylon at breakneck pace. Half way there, he turns back on himself. Any wonder Darius uttered "WT*"?!

A silly, silly film.

[Hypaspist]

That scene, in Stone's film, was quite ridiculous. The Macedonian army marches forward and right and Alexander, along with his cavalry, takes off for Babylon at breakneck pace. Half way there, he turns back on himself. Any wonder Darius uttered "WT*"?!

Exactly the kind of response I expected. Paralus, with all due respect, that is your opinion. The scene was beautiful and inspiring to a great deal many people.

takes off for Babylon at breakneck pace. Half way there, he turns back on himself.

Eh, que?!

[Paralus]

It may well be my opinion but the depiction of the maneuvers prior to the onset of battle is ridiculous. The sources describe Alexander as moving forward to his right. Alexander has half the Argianians and javelin men posted in front of the Companion cavalry and it is these who deal with the chariots aimed at it. He has a right wing flank guard to guard against encirclement with Aretes ordered to charge the enemy should they attempt to ride around the wing. Arrian spends much ink describing this and says that, post the chariots, Alexander "led his men in column" until the cavalry under Aretes charged those attempting to ride around the wing. On the right, prior to this, the mercenary cavalry and the Paeonians were already heavily engaged with the Scythians and Bactrians. These troops were to Alexander's right.

Now, it has been some time since I've watched the film but, if memory holds, Stone has Alexander charge off the battlefield to the right at Golden Slipper pace (hence my 'takes off for Babylon'). He'd have had to charge past or through his right flank guards - heavily engaged - to do so yet nothing in the sources describes this flight from the field to the right. Arrian simply notes that, following the commitment of further enemy cavalry to the action with the right flank guard, Alexander turned about towards the resultant gap, formed a wedge of the nearby phalanx, and led them at 'full speed' towards Darius. From what I recall of the film, Stone has Alexander near reverse course and charge back across towards his infantry. This will have taken him back through or past his right flank guard still heavily engaged. Perhaps I should watch it again though I do not think it will alter my perception.

I did like the proposed drill of the phalanx and the successive couching of sarisae though.

[Hypaspist]

We're getting off-topic here, but just this...

Yes, I agree with you. Opening maneuvers were incongruous with the sources. A classic example of how I sometimes let prose and romance get the better of me, haha . Joking apart, I am well aware of the extent to which Stone digressed in terms of historical accuracy. I got carried away with the flairs of romanticism in the scene to the point where it made me throw the books out the window. I didn't feel like ruining the beauty of the scene with dissection... I'm a romantic, so sue me! Ha ha

In overall, I agree with you. Stone, probably (or evidently), wasn't the right man for the job. Did you know there's a fourth cut of the movie on its way to the market? That alone bespeaks of how unsure of the movie he must be. I've never heard of single movie title engendering that amount of ´cuts´! But I absolutely loved the soundtrack, a big shout-out to Vangelis! I have all three existing cuts of the movie, and let me tell you, the last one, ´Alexander revisited´, is really not that bad; the Gaugamela battle scene is prolonged by quite a few minutes, and contains additional gore and developments - it's pretty brutal, actually. More so, it contains all the footage that was ever shot for the movie, stretching it out to roughly 3-and-half-hours.

Lastly, I remember Lane-Fox talking about his experiences during the shooting, relating how he informed Stone of the names of several actual `Companions´, asking him to use those instead of made up ones. Stones' reply was (paraphrasing here): "Hey, I invented Gordon Gekko, OK?" I think Stone is a real stubborn filmmaker who shot himself in the foot pretty badly on this movie. And I think he knows it.


PS: If you do re-watch it, I strongly recommend the final cut, `Alexander revisited´. I don't think it will ´alter your perception´of the movie, but at least it's fun to watch the additional footage.