pothos.org

Only if they are in one line; they would form up at least four deep and probably eight so that's between 6m per man or 12m.

chris_taylor wrote:
how you distribute 1500 javelin throwers over 1 km?

That's an average density of 1.5 men per m front line. Even if they worked in groups, that's still dangerously dense.

And just as important: Alexander needed to be able to see through that forest of javelins in front of him, to watch the Persian front line for the gap.

Chris.

Don't have Marsden to hand and so will leave the distance you're working as is. Marsden is wrong, though, with respect to his flank guards. He posits flank guards parallel to the Persian lines. This defeats the notion of an advance in loxe taxis. The purpose of the guards was to make a Persian move to flank either wing as difficult as possible. These guards were angled back away from the main line thus increasing the time and distance the Persian flank attack would face. This can be seen in the flanking attack on Alexander's right where the cavalry under Menidas attacks the Persian flanking force, then that of Aristo and finally Aretes. The light infantry was then able to extend or contract he "phalanx" as necessary.

On the amount of room the Agrianians, archers and javelin men would take up, such troops, according to the Tacticians, were organised by lochos (file) eight deep which were grouped into a syntaxis (or unit). These writers provide an ideal organisation for light troops and those troops that approached that "ideal" in organisation will have been the "professional" groups such as Alexander's Agrianians, Balacrus' javelin men et al. Clearly given the descriptions of these troops by Arrian they were well organised and ordered. Given the room required to loose a javelin and to fire arrows each likely occupied a six foot square: equivalent to the phalanx in marching order.

I think when it comes to psiloi (light infantry), the tacticians have to be taken with a large pinch of sodium chloride; like ones battle plan, light infantry spacing is unlikely to survive the first contact with the enemy; at Gaugamela, for example, once the chariots were in motion there would be places where the lights swarmed around them, like leucocytes attacking an infection, and others where the troops avoided them. Nor would they have carried many more than three javelins which makes their value as distance skirmishers quite limited.

Far from making the army monochrome the lack of uniformity would make it very colourful; these peasants have had three years to dress in fancier duds than their local homespun. Diodoros mentions polemikois hoplois as cited by Paralus, ie warlike arms, this surely cannot be stretched to include tunics.

Paralus wrote:
On the amount of room the Agrianians, archers and javelin men would take up, such troops, according to the Tacticians,

when you say Tacticians, I assume you mean Aeneas / Asclepidotus & Arrian's Ars Tactica?

... were organised by lochos (file) eight deep which were grouped into a syntaxis (or unit). These writers provide an ideal organisation for light troops and those troops that approached that "ideal" in organisation will have been the "professional" groups such as Alexander's Agrianians,

sounds like I should read these before supergluing my figures to the battlefield.

I'm struggling to remember all these names and sift texts that only survive in fragments. Is there a good book that has the majority of the works I should read to understand ancient military tactics better ?

Also: coming back to the grooms & spare horses I mentioned earlier.

We assumed that the most life-threatening event for a mounted solider is to have his horse killed underneath him. So the companions cavalry must have had grooms & spare horses riding with them during, or at least following, the charge.

Arrian says that Alexander lost 1000 horse. That may be more than Alexander expected and made provisions for initially, but whatever his starting numbers were, they can't have been insignificant.

So these spare horses must be included in our model.

But is there any evidence how providing spare horses may have worked - who provided them (Alexander or the individual companion), how many per ilia or lochos, how many horses per groom?

Thanks,

Chris.

chris_taylor wrote:Also: coming back to the grooms & spare horses I mentioned earlier.

We assumed that the most life-threatening event for a mounted solider is to have his horse killed underneath him. So the companions cavalry must have had grooms & spare horses riding with them during, or at least following, the charge.

Arrian says that Alexander lost 1000 horse. That may be more than Alexander expected and made provisions for initially, but whatever his starting numbers were, they can't have been insignificant.

So these spare horses must be included in our model.

But is there any evidence how providing spare horses may have worked - who provided them (Alexander or the individual companion), how many per ilia or lochos, how many horses per groom?

I'm afraid I've not had enough time to get involved in this discussion, although it's very interesting; but I have some students writing an assessment at the moment, so I have a few minutes to throw in a quick reply to this one.

While there is mention of grooms in Arrian (unless I am mistaken) there isn't anything that says exactly where they were located. Same with spare mounts.

I would suggest taking a look at Engels' "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army", where, if anyone has looked at that question, he will have! Unfortunately, being at work, I cannot access my copy to have a look for you.

ATB

We know from Curtius VII i 15ff that the companions provided their own spare mounts but that the King's officials - Secretaries of the Horse - could force their distribution to other men. There is no reported instance of troopers recieving remounts in battle, and the process would lead to chaos. Aretas is described as a Groom albeit 'the groom who asssisted the King to mount' at Granikos and is clearly in the front ranks as Alexander calls on him for a replacement lance, it does not bear thinking about how this man could control his own horse and a spare in the heat of action.

Replacement mounts must have remained in camp and were only distributed post eventum; the 1000 horses lost at Gaugamela were ridden to death during the pursuit rather than killed in battle.

Loeb have Asclepiodotos bound with Onasander and Aeneas Tacticus, only the first is relevant, Arrian is available online I think and Aelian Tacticus, ie not the man of Varia Historia nor Historia Animalum, is available from public libraries for £5 and a bit, request A. M. Devine Aelian's Manual of Hellenistic Military Tactics; a new translation with an introduction.' Ancient World 19 (1989) pp31-64. Aelian and Arrian are very similar, though I have yet to pick my copy up so cannot comment further.

agesilaos wrote:We know from Curtius VII i 15ff that the companions provided their own spare mounts but that the King's officials - Secretaries of the Horse - could force their distribution to other men. There is no reported instance of troopers recieving remounts in battle, and the process would lead to chaos. Aretas is described as a Groom albeit 'the groom who asssisted the King to mount' at Granikos and is clearly in the front ranks as Alexander calls on him for a replacement lance, it does not bear thinking about how this man could control his own horse and a spare in the heat of action.

that's the function of groom during battle: keep hold of the spare lance and the remount. So I took this to mean exactly what it says.

I know that each Companion was allowed to have a groom and I'm not suggesting they were *all* going into battle.

What I am trying to establish is whether it is probable that each lochoi was followed by a few grooms leading 4 - 5 spare horses (=10%), staying behind the battle front, but close enough to see a Companion dismounted because his horse got run through underneath him.

Replacement mounts must have remained in camp and were only distributed post eventum; the 1000 horses lost at Gaugamela were ridden to death during the pursuit rather than killed in battle.

exactly: if none of these 1000 horses were "spares", then by implication, Darius was pursued by 1000 Companions, who all rode their horses to death and then walked back for miles, against the stream of tens of thousands of fleeing Persians.

That seemed so improbable, I'd concluded that most of the horses that died were remounts, ie each Companion rode *several* horses to death. I also think it is unlikely that Alexander used Bucephalus for the pursuit. He was too old to race and too valuable as a charger. If so, then he would have had to change horse mid-battle, or dash back to the camp.

I accept that there is no reported incidence of grooms & remounts accompanying the cavalry charge, but there is equally no mention of Companions fighting heroically on foot because their horse got killed (or more likely, because the horse became dangerously uncontrollable after being wounded).

(IIRC, Arrian implies that 1/2 of the 1000 horses killed were Companion mounts, ie only 500 horses died during the pursuit of Darius, but it doesn't change my basic argument).

Loeb have Asclepiodotos bound with Onasander and Aeneas Tacticus, only the first is relevant, Arrian is available online I hink and Aelian Tacticus, ie not the man of Varia Historia nor Historia Animalum

the names Aeneas & Aelian looked so alike, I hadn't even realized there were two Tactica. Found both on ebay - thanks!

Chris.

agesilaos wrote: Far from making the army monochrome the lack of uniformity would make it very colourful; these peasants have had three years to dress in fancier duds than their local homespun. Diodoros mentions polemikois hoplois as cited by Paralus, ie warlike arms, this surely cannot be stretched to include tunics.

Good point.

I'm going to give the Macedonians & mercenaries bright coloured tunics and the Thracians horses gold & silver embellishments. If the authenticy freaks in the wargaming camp ask, I'll say it's from the loot at Issus


Chris.

Have just checked e-bay and that Aelian is not the writer on tactics; as far as I know there are two translations one a reprint from 1600 odd and Devine's which is the cheaper option and in modern English. Aeneas Tacticus wrote a treatise on tactics but only the portion concerning sieges, in fact being besieged.

I will have to consider your points on the grooms and reply with all the evidence I can muster

agesilaos wrote: Aelian Tacticus, ie not the man of Varia Historia nor Historia Animalum, is available from public libraries for £5 and a bit, request A. M. Devine Aelian's Manual of Hellenistic Military Tactics; a new translation with an introduction.' Ancient World 19 (1989) pp31-64. Aelian and Arrian are very similar, though I have yet to pick my copy up so cannot comment further.

Aelian can be found here - link courtesey of Amyntoros.

chris_taylor wrote:

Paralus wrote:
On the amount of room the Agrianians, archers and javelin men would take up, such troops, according to the Tacticians,

when you say Tacticians, I assume you mean Aeneas / Asclepidotus & Arrian's Ars Tactica?

Yes.

chris_taylor wrote:What I am trying to establish is whether it is probable that each lochoi was followed by a few grooms leading 4 - 5 spare horses (=10%), staying behind the battle front, but close enough to see a Companion dismounted because his horse got run through underneath him.

Arrian clearly states that those chariots which made it through the phalanx (i.e., the hypaspists) were cleaned up by the rear ranks of the hypaspists and the grooms (hippokomoi). So it would appear that the grooms were in attendance in the rear. Whether they were there to supply spare arms and horses is quite another matter. This battle will have been a case of all hands to the sarisae so to speak and so they may have been placed here by Alexander for the purpose of helping to deal with the break throughs.

As for Aretis at the Granicus - described as anabolea ton basilikon (royal attendant who helps the king to mount) - he is almost certainly one of the paides basilikoi; likely one of the more "senior" so to speak (see Bosworth's commentary V.I, p122). Confirmation appears at 4.13.1 where Arrian relates that this was on of the duties of the pages.

I agree with Agesilaos that it is very difficult to conceive of grooms participating in any cavalry battle. The description of the Granicus is horse against horse and rider against rider. The only troops that might have found their way into the cavalry fight will have been the agema of the hypaspists and the Agrianians who are always posted about the Companion cavalry. Grooms bearing spare horses will only have confused formations and tactical plans.

The favoured formation of the Macedonian cavalry was a wedge. Horses will have been arranged with a metre or so room. These will have inter-penetrated enemy formations and wheeled after riding through (a bit like the trireme tactic of diekplous). Ancient sources don't often relate the detail of such cavalry attacks and, when they do, it is not always clearly laid out how these attacks were performed. Raphia (217) and Gaza (312) do offer some detail. In the former Antiochus III arrayed his agema and hetairoi (2,000) in deep column and rode around the right flank of his elephants and delivered a flank assault (Pol. 5.82.8-9; 82.8). This will have been in a column of wedges by squadron (ile). The tactic is described better by Diodorus at Gaza (19.83.4-5):

But after a little, when Ptolemy and Seleucus had ridden around the wing and charged upon them more heavily with cavalry drawn up in depth, there was severe fighting because of the zeal of both sides. In the first charge, indeed, the fighting was with spears, most of which were shattered, and many of the antagonists were wounded; then, rallying again, the men rushed into battle at sword's point, and, as they were locked in close combat, many were slain on each side.

Here the Ptolemaic cavalry charged in a column of wedges by ile and delivered a flank attack. They have ridden through and broken most of their spears. Ptolemy "rallies" his men and they charge again with kopis drawn to fall into a melee which essentially became an infantry battle on horseback. There is little room here for grooms to be supplying replacement horses. If Ptolemy's cavalry has "ridden through" - and it clearly did - it is rallied somewhere beyond its own lines and, by extension, any grooms.

chris_taylor wrote:

Replacement mounts must have remained in camp and were only distributed post eventum; the 1000 horses lost at Gaugamela were ridden to death during the pursuit rather than killed in battle.

exactly: if none of these 1000 horses were "spares", then by implication, Darius was pursued by 1000 Companions, who all rode their horses to death and then walked back for miles, against the stream of tens of thousands of fleeing Persians.

(IIRC, Arrian implies that 1/2 of the 1000 horses killed were Companion mounts, ie only 500 horses died during the pursuit of Darius, but it doesn't change my basic argument).

The number is given in the context of Arrian's listing of the dead and captured due to the battle and the chase:

Nearly a hundred of Alexander's men perished, and more than a thousand horses died from the wounds and the stress of the pursuit. Almost half of these horses belonged to the Companion cavalry. There were said to be nearly three hundred thousand barbarian corpses, but far more men were captured than killed, and the elephants were captured, as were all the chariots that had not been shattered in the battle.

Firstly, the numbers of barbarian dead and captured are Greco-Macedonian fantasy - as will be the numbers of Macedonian losses. Secondly 1,000 horses perished from wounds received in the battle as well as the pursuit. Most of these (more than half) did not belong to the Companion cavalry. Alexander camped overnight at the river Lykos where the horses were rested and, one imagines, the injured and non-serviceable replaced (3.15.4) or, if not, left behind. Lastly the elephants clearly played no part in the battle as they are captured in the enemy camp. It is inconceivable that had they taken part the sources will have left such a novelty out - especially as this will have been the first battle involving Macedonians and elephants.

agesilaos wrote:I think when it comes to psiloi (light infantry), the tacticians have to be taken with a large pinch of sodium chloride; like ones battle plan, light infantry spacing is unlikely to survive the first contact with the enemy;

Yes: the Tacticians write of an ideal world both mathematically and tactically. The dose of salt is recommended for more than just the psiloi. That said, Alexander's Agrianians and Balacrus' javelin men will have been deployed in good formation as they are in front of his cavalry; order will have been most appreciated. This order will have fallen apart as the chariots attacked I agree.

Three is the generally accepted number of javelins and whether these men carried a "sidearm" is another question. I'd suggest they did and that their close accordance with the Companion cavalry indicates that they fought in the cavalry melee that battles eventually descended into. The Agrianians were a very important unit and were added to throughout the campaign. They and the archers are listed (Diod.17.74.4) as 1,000 strong at the Hellespont and by 331 (at the latest) there are 1,000 of them, ("Tauron, his lieutenant, was given 1,500 mercenaries and about 1,000 Agrianes"... Curtius 5.3.6). Their battle line companions, the archers, are later brigaded in chiliarchies (Arr.4.24.10)

Paralus wrote:Arrian clearly states that those chariots which made it through the phalanx (i.e., the hypaspists) were cleaned up by the rear ranks of the hypaspists and the grooms (hippokomoi). So it would appear that the grooms were in attendance in the rear.

That grooms were in attendance at the rear of the phalanx is undisputed. The question was whether they were also behind the Companions during the charge.

I agree with Agesilaos that it is very difficult to conceive of grooms participating in any cavalry battle.

And you've both convinced me: there is no mention of them anywhere in Arrian, Xenophon or Aelian. I searched the electronic texts for synonyms that may muddy the waters due to translation, like "bodyguards" and "squires", but there is nothing. Zero.

There comes a point when the absence of proof constitutes proof of absence: so grooms & spare horses go behind the phalanx only.

This battle will have been a case of all hands to the sarisae so to speak

love this one

Ancient sources don't often relate the detail of such cavalry attacks and, when they do, it is not always clearly laid out how these attacks were performed.

Agreed. I also underestimated that ancient battles must have been much more of a start-and-stop affair than I envisaged.

http://garyb.0catch.com/gaps3_phalanx/gaps_phalanx.html

this site, although it's about the Roman army, makes some very good points. Re-enactments of ancient battles and experience of high performance athletes in boxing/fencing show just how quickly soldiers must have become exhausted.

agesilaos wrote:I think when it comes to psiloi (light infantry), the tacticians have to be taken with a large pinch of sodium chloride; like ones battle plan, light infantry spacing is unlikely to survive the first contact with the enemy;

Paralus wrote:Yes: the Tacticians write of an ideal world both mathematically and tactically. The dose of salt is recommended for more than just the psiloi. That said, Alexander's Agrianians and Balacrus' javelin men will have been deployed in good formation as they are in front of his cavalry; order will have been most appreciated. This order will have fallen apart as the chariots attacked I agree.

It goes without saying that formations are dynamic, but understanding how units were lined up (= how they were intended to work as groups) makes a difference to the way we base the figures on the model.

f.e: we originally wanted to base one ile on one rectangular metal strip. Our understanding was that each formed part of (a straightfronted) limb of a wedge.

After the discussions here on wedge-shaped formations, we decided instead to base each ile on 4 little rectangles, representing 40 - 60 horse each, and the formation on each little rectangle in a wedge-shape.

Thanks to everyone here, it's already paying off. The beauty, flexibilty and ingenuity of Alexander's cavalry formations is becoming visually apparent.

Chris.

chris_taylor wrote:this site, although it's about the Roman army, makes some very good points. Re-enactments of ancient battles and experience of high performance athletes in boxing/fencing show just how quickly soldiers must have become exhausted.

I can attest to that, Chris. A few years ago I was in a small-scale fencing competition. One fight I had, only up to five points, must have lasted for little more than three minutes. Now, I would hardly call myself a high-performance athlete, but I can tell you that after those three minutes I was finished, and needed to rest for a good ten minutes before I was ready to go again. Now, fencing is extremely fast and uses more anaerobic energy than actual muscle power, and is more cardio-intensive than fighting in a phalanx would have been; but if three minutes of foil work was enough to exhaust me utterly, I can imagine what it must have been like after two or three hours in a sarissa phalanx!

I'll stick to sitting in my armchair with a gin and tonic and a good book, if that's OK with you!

ATB

chris_taylor wrote:That grooms were in attendance at the rear of the phalanx is undisputed. The question was whether they were also behind the Companions during the charge.

No, I cannot see the possibility that grooms, trailing a spare mount or two, followed the hetairoi in any charge. The only result can have been non-combatants and riderless horses causing mayhem. Imagine a Melbourne Cup, 300 metres from the post, and half the field riderless. Once the cavalry battle settled into a "free for all" and tactical formation largely abandoned, there will have been enough riderless and dying horses without the need to add to it. As well, if the cavalry charged by ile, we must somehow imagine its grooms following it. At Gaza, for example, this would mean that Demetrius had an advance guard of three ile each backed by grooms and a similar flank guard backed by its grooms. Again, Curtius (3.11.13-14) describes the Thessalians charging the Persians at Issus:

On the right, however, the Persians were pressing hard against the Thessalian cavalry, and one squadron had already been trampled down in the attack. Now the Thessalians wheeled their horses round vigorously, split up and then returned once more to the attack, inflicting great slaughter on the barbarians who, confident of victory, had broken ranks and were in total disarray

This wheeling will have been "squadron by squadron" and cannot possibly have been performed with grooms trailing each squadron. The Companion cavalry functioned in the exact same manner and grooms charging behind the Ile of the hetairoi is hardly to be considered.

At Gaugamela alexander "arrayed the Companion cavalry and the nearby portion of the phalanx in a wedge formation and led them at full speed and with a war cry toward Darius himself" (Arr.3.14.2). The "nearby portion of the phalanx" will have been the the hypaspists along with the taxeis of Coenus and Perdiccas. No room here for grooms either. They'd done their duty earlier with respect to the chariots.

Even when Alexander engages in pursuit there is no note of grooms trailing with spare mounts. In the pursuit of Darius (Arr.3.20.1 - 21.10) Alexander leaves the exhausted foot and horses behind. At 3.20.1 "owing to the urgent pace of the march, many of his soldiers were left behind exhauseted and the horses were dying; undeterred, he hastened onward...". A little later Alexander mounts 500 of the agema of the hypaspists and Agrianians given that "his own men and horses were exhausted, but he nevertheless pressed on" (3.21.6). In 328 during the Sogdian revolt, Curtius (8.2.34) reports that...

At first the men somehow coped with the road, which was steep and obstructed with rocks, but soon their horses suffered exhaustion as well as worn hooves. Most could not keep up, and the line became progressively thinner as the excessive effort crushed their sense of shame, as often happens.

As the line "became thinner", horses were clearly not replaced by trailing grooms.

chris_taylor wrote:this site, although it's about the Roman army, makes some very good points. Re-enactments of ancient battles and experience of high performance athletes in boxing/fencing show just how quickly soldiers must have become exhausted.

And the two are quite a different animal. The Macedonian phalanx fought in close order and Roman infantrymen fought in what the Macedonians would term "open order" with about six feet per man (three feet to each side, front and rear). Polybius (18.29.1-2; 30.6-8)

Many considerations may easily convince us that, if only the phalanx has its proper formation and strength, nothing can resist it face to face or withstand its charge. For as a man in close order of battle occupies a space of three feet [...] Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man—because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,—it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect.

There are no attestations of the Macedonian phalanx replacing tired soldiers. If one fell dead or wounder his file mate in the following rank will have stepped forward. The only documented "relay" in siege situations.

chris_taylor wrote:It goes without saying that formations are dynamic, but understanding how units were lined up (= how they were intended to work as groups) makes a difference to the way we base the figures on the model.

Probably best to proceed with the Agrianians and other lights in open order. This would mean about six feet per man. Thus if the 2,000 such troops in front of the Companion cavalry were eight deep they would occupy some 500 yards; if four deep 1,000 yards.

the model is coming on steadily, most of the right flank and the right wing
up to the hypaspists are complete.

before deciding how to mount each unit, a question about Alexander's
approach to the battlefield:

did he

a) approach the Persian line head-ony, stoppped his army when he reached
striking distance, and then changed direction by marching off towards
the right.

in that case, his frontline would be "refused" the way I understand the
term, ie it isn't parallel to the opposing side when they line up for battle.


or did he (as I understand Curtius)

b) approach diagonally and once in striking distance, flattened his
angle of approach to parallel and just continued to march on
(from the air his army would have looked like a 3 km long arrow
approaching the Persians at an angle, glancing off just before hitting them
and continuing to skid along parallel to them).

in that scenario, the "refused frontline" is part & parcel of the
approach and there would be no traditional "start" to the battle. It started once
Alexander marched out of camp in battle order. From then on,
he would simple keep on moving until he had forced Darius to
commit his cavalry.

thanks for your thoughts

Chris.

PS: at 6mm scale, birdcage sand has the right granularity to mimic a desert
and dressmakers pins make for very realistic lances