Standards

Discuss the culture of Alexander's world and his image in art

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:Isn't it possible that the file leaders (sorry, I've forgotten the Greek word) had some kind of coloured strip tied around the shafts of their sarissas, to help their own file keep in line? Gradually then, these identifying markers got grander and grander - I can see it happening - until you end up with golden eagles. But Alexander's phalanx would also have been following the standards, as Curtius says, simply by making sure they kept behind the chap with the red cloth, and didn't get muddled up with those yellow cloth fellows in the next file.
Lochagos is the word Fiona.

The thing that is largely forgotten in a regimented modern world (pardon the pun) is that the ancient Greeks were not…regimented. They were tribed. This because they would recognise those of their neighbours and families. This largely removed the modern need for regimentation as they assembled for war via their hoplite rolls, via tribes. They knew who they would stand with and who they might die with.

The Macedonian army, under Philip, was still a regional levy from what we know. Units of the phalanx were drawn from the “cantons” of Macedonia and were led by their local nobility – as they had traditionally been. Thus the “tribes” idea likely still applied.

Where would one carry or, in a hedgehog of sarisae, present a standard?

That aside, Amyntoros’ quotation of Heckel is on the money: I believe the generals of the taxeis commanded from horseback. This if only to see what was happening the better and to respond. Craterus, I suspect, will have had several “junior” officers to convey commands to the left of the phalanx line. Parmenion will have had, I think, what amounted to a “staff” which he commanded from the most important position outside of the companion cavalry: the Thessalians who held the left of the line and, therefore, the base of Alexander’s anvil.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Fiona wrote:Isn't it possible that the file leaders (sorry, I've forgotten the Greek word) had some kind of coloured strip tied around the shafts of their sarissas, to help their own file keep in line? Gradually then, these identifying markers got grander and grander - I can see it happening - until you end up with golden eagles. But Alexander's phalanx would also have been following the standards, as Curtius says, simply by making sure they kept behind the chap with the red cloth, and didn't get muddled up with those yellow cloth fellows in the next file.
Fiona
In case anyone hasn't noticed, I am incredibly fascinated with the question of the Macedonian phalanxes' command and control. I could talk about this stuff all day. :lol:

I'm not sure about those penants, Fionna. Once the sarissae were lowered, they would not be of very much use.

Where good march and order are concerned, at the risk of allowing modern data into an ancient concept, allow me to throw in something from my own military experience.

Phalanx movement would have been, for the most part, not very complicated in terms of direction. You're really looking at forward movement mitigated by the possibility of an oblique advance.

A guide-on (banner, pennant, whatever you like to call it) is not really necessary for this. Discipline, cadence, audible commands and, most importantly, repetition and practice are enough. Most phalanxes were of 8- or 16-man depth. I haven't worked with 16-man deep formations much, but I have participated in drill that involved hundreds of individuals across by 6-8 individuals deep. At 8 deep--and thus 32 across--one can, believe it or not, convey audible commands for a unit that size.

The question in my mind is whether this approached what more recent formations were capable of, and whether it was the supernumeraries who were responsible "making it happen". That is, a central authority at one end of the spectrum sounding off a call to capture attention, followed by others for specific actions. As in, a bugle call that is acknowledged by the heralds waving or the buglers responding; another bugle call for "forward, march"; another for "oblique right, march"; and so on. If not, then I'm not really sure what purpose they served.
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Phoebus wrote: In case anyone hasn't noticed, I am incredibly fascinated with the question of the Macedonian phalanxes' command and control. I could talk about this stuff all day. :lol:

<snip>

The question in my mind is whether this approached what more recent formations were capable of, and whether it was the supernumeraries who were responsible "making it happen". That is, a central authority at one end of the spectrum sounding off a call to capture attention, followed by others for specific actions. As in, a bugle call that is acknowledged by the heralds waving or the buglers responding; another bugle call for "forward, march"; another for "oblique right, march"; and so on. If not, then I'm not really sure what purpose they served.
The ancient battles themselves have never been the focus of my study so I've remained fairly ignornant on these matters although I have been trying to remedy this lately. However, from my uneducated perspective I must say that your statement above makes sense to me in that the porcupine nature of the phalanx(es) is surely indicative of a need to know en masse when to march and in which direction. Also, given the frequent wide field of battle and the number of phalanxes arraigned, I wonder if there was a need for certain supernumaries to communicate with one another down the line so that every division was in synch, especially once the battle had started and the dust clouds arose.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Yeah, that's was the other thing I meant to drive at.

The so-called "heralds" (as they're referred to in Smith's Dictionary) strike me as ideal for things that bugle calls and/or banner waving couldn't accomplish in an adequate manner.

Alexander's phalanx would have been about 7-8 football fields long (minus the endzones for those of your tracking US football); twice as long with 8-man depth. I really don't see someone being able to sound off a coded trumpet message over either of those distances with a guarantee of success.

Along the lines of what Paralus mentioned in the other thread, I think the phalanx was largely a "point and shoot" weapon that marched along largely pre-determined lanes. Alexander probably didn't have much to pass from his position to his Taxiarchs other than the initial departure command and any necessary modifications to the order or direction of march. For those tasks, I imagine horse-riding heralds passed rode to the individual Taxiarchs with word.

Within each Taxis, the supernumeraries of each syntagma then took over. The Taxiarch's bugler and ensign would sound off with commands, to which each syntagma's counterparts would respond and relay. Once everyone is on the same sheet of music, drill and march become largely a matter of practiced basics.

I don't even want to think about 9,000 men marching on the same foot, in cadence. It's a headache. 1,500 men, though? When coordinated in roughly 6 different blocks (of approximately 256 men each)? It's feasible. Even if the various taxeis are as much as a few seconds apart, that's correctible over a distance of a few hundred yards' of march.

When we're talking about the oblique, even this difficulty is erased. In this case, the leading syntagma would likely reach a certain distance (perhaps so that its ouragoi were flush with the next syntagma's 4th or 8th man) before the very next one began marching.
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Paralus wrote:
Lochagos is the word Fiona.
Thanks, Paralus - actually, now I've brought my book home from work and looked it up, I think I was after the word dekadarch, because I was meaning the men leading each file rather than the commander of the whole lochos.
Paralus wrote: The thing that is largely forgotten in a regimented modern world (pardon the pun) is that the ancient Greeks were not…regimented. They were tribed. This because they would recognise those of their neighbours and families. This largely removed the modern need for regimentation as they assembled for war via their hoplite rolls, via tribes. They knew who they would stand with and who they might die with.

The Macedonian army, under Philip, was still a regional levy from what we know. Units of the phalanx were drawn from the “cantons” of Macedonia and were led by their local nobility – as they had traditionally been. Thus the “tribes” idea likely still applied.
It looks like my idea is not a good one, as you point out it wouldn't have been needed for recognition, because they all knew each other anyway, and Phoebus has pointed out that it wouldn't have been needed for keeping in line either. Oh well, it was just a thought.
Paralus wrote: Where would one carry or, in a hedgehog of sarisae, present a standard?
Quite - that's rather why I was wondering if they tied things to the sarissas. I suppose there still remains the possibility that units had standards of some kind for ceremonial occasions - Arrian's reference to the standard bearing Hephaistion's image still being carried doesn't have to mean carried into battle, I guess. It could just mean carried on parade.
Paralus wrote: That aside, Amyntoros’ quotation of Heckel is on the money: I believe the generals of the taxeis commanded from horseback. This if only to see what was happening the better and to respond. Craterus, I suspect, will have had several “junior” officers to convey commands to the left of the phalanx line. Parmenion will have had, I think, what amounted to a “staff” which he commanded from the most important position outside of the companion cavalry: the Thessalians who held the left of the line and, therefore, the base of Alexander’s anvil.
Can I just clarify here - d'you think they were just commanding, then, rather than fighting themselves? I can see why they'd have had people to take messages with orders, but I'd always imagined them being in the thick of battle while they were doing it, just like Alexander was.
Fiona
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Phoebus wrote: In case anyone hasn't noticed, I am incredibly fascinated with the question of the Macedonian phalanxes' command and control. I could talk about this stuff all day. :lol:
Your enthusiasm shines through, and I like the way you talk happily with those who know huge amounts and those who know very little at all. (But I'm trying to learn!)
Phoebus wrote:
I'm not sure about those penants, Fionna. Once the sarissae were lowered, they would not be of very much use.

Where good march and order are concerned, at the risk of allowing modern data into an ancient concept, allow me to throw in something from my own military experience.

Phalanx movement would have been, for the most part, not very complicated in terms of direction. You're really looking at forward movement mitigated by the possibility of an oblique advance.

A guide-on (banner, pennant, whatever you like to call it) is not really necessary for this. Discipline, cadence, audible commands and, most importantly, repetition and practice are enough. Most phalanxes were of 8- or 16-man depth. I haven't worked with 16-man deep formations much, but I have participated in drill that involved hundreds of individuals across by 6-8 individuals deep. At 8 deep--and thus 32 across--one can, believe it or not, convey audible commands for a unit that size.
I'd have thought that this is one of those instances where real experience, modern or not, has a lot to tell us. (Are you out there in Bactria with the army, then? Or aren't you allowed to say?)
Anyway, if shouted commands would have been audible, then what need for more. It sounds good. And I can think of one or two occasions when Alexander's phalanx were going to do something more complicated than just move forward, but on those occasions the movements had been planned out before the action, and presumably everyone knew what he had to do.
Phoebus wrote: The question in my mind is whether this approached what more recent formations were capable of, and whether it was the supernumeraries who were responsible "making it happen". That is, a central authority at one end of the spectrum sounding off a call to capture attention, followed by others for specific actions. As in, a bugle call that is acknowledged by the heralds waving or the buglers responding; another bugle call for "forward, march"; another for "oblique right, march"; and so on. If not, then I'm not really sure what purpose they served.
Are you talking about the Hellensitic armies when you say more recent ones, or about Roman armies? If they did more complicated things, then I guess the bugle calls make sense. How many notes can a bugle play? Is there a wide range of available signals?
If that wasn't what these later supernumaries were for, maybe they were for passing information between units, rather than conveying orders across the unit itself?
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:Can I just clarify here - d'you think they were just commanding, then, rather than fighting themselves? I can see why they'd have had people to take messages with orders, but I'd always imagined them being in the thick of battle while they were doing it, just like Alexander was.
Oh, I think they fought alright. The problem here is that we are left to imagine just how all of this functioned. The most detailed source, in terms of how the army lined up and who went where, on the battles of Alexander – Arrian – is, on his own admission, relying on Ptolemy and/or Aristobulos. Neither of these lads saw any great need to explain what they, and their intended audience, well knew. Thus we don’t posses detailed explanations of where the generals of the phalanx placed themselves or how the system of command and control functioned.

So we are left to imagine – as did Stone in his film – how these things transpired. That Parmenion, commanding the left of the army, did so on foot is highly unlikely to me. That Coenus, Perdiccas and the others down to Craterus did so from the ranks of the dimoirites (“double-pay men”) also sits oddly with me. It is the more likely that they commanded their battalions from horseback and to the rear. During battle they may well have dismounted and fought on foot with their soldiers (as did Ptolemy in India) or moved to the front to lead charges or changes in direction (as did, perhaps, Coenus at Gaugamela with his taxis and Hephaestion with the agema of the hypaspists).

In the end we are not ever to know with any certainty. What is telling though is the description of Issus. Here we have a picture of the Macedonian phalanx in serious trouble. Alexander and his hypaspists have forged across the river and driven into the Persian line. The phalanx units attempt to follow but inevitably suffer a rupture when the centre units, due to the river banks, cannot keep up with their advancing right. The phalanx is penetrated and a terrible battle for survival ensues. We have descriptions of many officers meeting their ends but, significantly, only the one taxiarch – Ptolemy – is among them. That may be due to the fact that only the one battalion was in strife but it is more likely due to the fact that the taxiarch was not in those front ranks but to the rear on horse. Ptolemy may well have ridden into the fray or dismounted and took himself towards the breaches. We do not know. We do know that these officers survived the campaign largely intact.

Phoebus has described the likely scenario of trumpeters and heralds. The trumpeters are well attested and so the “runners” by definition of the fact that orders are described as being passed on (Issus and Guagamela as well as the Hydaspes). The two command centres were obviously Alexander on the right and Parmenio/Craterus on the left. Perdiccas/Coenus, who will have led the taxeis on the right, will have taken their lead from the king’s elite foot soldiers – the hypaspist corps and its agema – who will have stuck with their king no matter his movements. As Phoebus describes, commands will have been passed down the phalanx line as needed from here and also from the commander of the left.

All will have come down to training and to drill. This army, by the time Alexander got to lead it, was well drilled and well used to killing. By the time it made its way into Babylon at campaign’s end, it was murderously effective at corralling and eliminating opposition forces in the field. Its crisp drill in Illyria, when on unsuitable ground and in a tight spot, frightened the bejesus out of Glaucius and Clietus. As well it should. It also, in its frightening and silent performance, screams refutation at Polybius’ description of the phalanx as limited and ponderous formation suitable only for perfect ground. Those of Philip V and Perseus in Polybius' day maybe, Philip’s and Alexander’s I think not.

It is for this reason that one might take Justin (11.6) at his word when he states:
Whether, with this small force [the invasion force at the Hellespont], it is more wonderful that he [Alexander] conquered the world, or that he dared to attempt its conquest, is difficult to determine. When he selected his troops for so hazardous a warfare, he did not choose robust young men, or men in the flower of their age, but veterans, most of whom had even passed their term of service, and who had fought under his father and his uncles; so that he might be thought to have chosen, not soldiers, but masters in war
.

Indeed he had. Some 3,000 of those “masters in war” were to find their way into Eumenes’ service in 317/16 as impossibly grizzled and irresistible killers of the battlefield.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Paralus,

(I think) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: however low I think their turn against Eumenes was, few things impress me more about this era than the Argyraspides prior to the battle with Antigonos.

I know we can't take the various stories of antiquity at face value, but I can see those deadly old grandfathers telling off their younger counterparts for daring to face off with them... and then proceed to lay waste to their phalanx.

The Argyraspides' decision to follow their leaders in their betrayal of Eumenes--and their subsequent fate--is probably the biggest downer of the whole story for me.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Post by agesilaos »

Curtius is of course a Roman author and the statement does seems an anticipation of Tacitus' comment on Arminius' Germans in their clash with the Suebi, that they were trained to hold the line and follow the standards.

Asclepiodotos is a late theoretician and not to be relied upon, one need only compare the occurence of unit names and their correspondence to his terms. Her even codifies unit sizes for chariots which had long been obselete.

Livy does give pause since he is describing a phalanx on the march, when standards may have been useful. My feeling is that a phalangite knows where he is in the formation by his neighbours and that orders would be passed verbally and then executed on a given trumpet blast. Visual signals would be pointless once battle is joined and difficult to see from the middle ranks through all those raised sarissae.

Again standards are generally a rallying point for troops which become dispersed, useful in the Roman system of loose flexible formations with low level independence of action, but pointless in a formation as rigid as a phalanx, if a phalanx is dispersed it is routed.

The only account I can think of of complex manoeuvres is Alexander's parade drill in Thrace and I can recall no mention of standards. Hephaistion's image was carried by a cavalry unit and they would need rallying points.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

agesilaos,

As stated earlier, I don't see how the standards were intended to relay visual signals for the phalangites themselves. Stationed as they were at the rear of each syntagma, the only possible recipients would have beent the ouragoi marching with the supernumeraries.

I'm not sure how the standards would have been pointless; if for no other reason than to identify individual syntagmata and taxeis for message runners, they would have been an invaluable time saver.

Beyond that, I once more see the image of the "loose, flexible Roman maniple" being brought forth. Looser and more mobile than the old phalanx block? Certainly. It goes without saying that even the best phalangites, the ones that were supposedly capable of forming hollow squares or could point pikes in more than one direction, would be less mobile and flexible than a Roman maniple. But then, battles were not fought by individual maniples and single blocks of phalangites. Where actual armies are concerned, I wonder how accurate this picture is.

A Roman line of battle was not a dispersed, loose thing. There weren't, as I recall, large gaps between each maniple and each cohort. A maniple could be peeled off and redeployed elsewhere much more swiftly than a syntagma of phalangites, but within certain limitations. Maniples in the front could be relieved by maniples in the rear, but this is front-to-rear movement--not lateral.

Even Pydna, which is basically the holy grail of Roman manipular superiority over the Macedonian-style phalanx, does not show this level of mobility. Once the phalanx is drawn into higher ground and its front begins breaking up, Paullus doesn't change his order of battle. Rather, he keeps a distance between his front as a whole and the phalanx, and orders instead that individual units (centuries, one must assume) shoot for the gaps where they appear.

That's certainly brilliant, but it's not exactly indicative of great flexibility. To the contrary, I have a hard time imagining another scenario where one infantry line could exploit another in that way. It's unique, I think, to the weaknesses of the phalanx, and I believe Pyrrhus was attempting to address exactly that when he interspersed Italian troops inbetween his blocks of phalanx... 120 years before Paullus broke Perseus.
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Fiona wrote:Your enthusiasm shines through, and I like the way you talk happily with those who know huge amounts and those who know very little at all. (But I'm trying to learn!)
Thanks for that, but in truth I'm chasing answers as much as the next guy (or girl). :)
I'd have thought that this is one of those instances where real experience, modern or not, has a lot to tell us. (Are you out there in Bactria with the army, then? Or aren't you allowed to say?)
Oh, it's no secret at this phase of the thing. I am deployed with the US Air Force, though the nature of my work has me constantly alongside US Army personnel.
Are you talking about the Hellensitic armies when you say more recent ones, or about Roman armies?

I meant things that 18th-early 19th century formations could do in terms of drill and coordination between large, marching elements. Without taking into consideration things even Alexander didn't use that much, if at all (such as a multi-tiered line of battle, with rear echelons relieving the front, etc), that is.
If they did more complicated things, then I guess the bugle calls make sense. How many notes can a bugle play? Is there a wide range of available signals?
That, I do not know. A good voice would probably be good for most orders, as a block of 8x32 (and maybe 16x16) could hear shouted commands reasonably well... outside of battle. In this sense, Pressfield's imagination may not have been off when he surmised Phillip chose his "NCOs" (as he call them) for their steady voices and cadences.

While in battle, though, I believe a trumpet/bugle could serve ably. How many calls could there be when you are flush against other blocks of phalanx to your right and left? I imagine their range of calls was probably limited to "stand your ground", "fighting withdrawal" (where the phalanx cedes ground, step by step, while still presenting arms forward), "retreat", and perhaps something along the lines of "Holy Zeus, we are now being attacked from the rear!"

I don't know how plausible the academic community finds Appian's picture of the Seleucid phalanx forming a hollow square in the middle of a battle. Similarly, I don't think there is a very complete picture of the battle that could allow us to plausibly guess as to whether Antiochus long columns had won the time and relief to shift into such a formation. I mention this only because this would have to have been a nightmare of signals, calls, and coordination! :shock:
If that wasn't what these later supernumaries were for, maybe they were for passing information between units, rather than conveying orders across the unit itself?
Fiona
I'm not sure that the individual, 256-man syntagmata had enough room or even a role for tactical initiative that would impose on them a need for much communication. If a unit smaller than the brigade-level Taxis had to send out a message, I have a hard time imagining it being something other than "Warning; our [insert unit here; 256- or 512-man] is about to collapse!"

Even then, I don't know what anyone could do for them. I'm far from having a full grasp of Hellenistic warfare, so I pose this question to others here: are there accounts of half-files being peeled off from one block to reinforce another?
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Paralus wrote:
Oh, I think they fought alright. The problem here is that we are left to imagine just how all of this functioned. The most detailed source, in terms of how the army lined up and who went where, on the battles of Alexander – Arrian – is, on his own admission, relying on Ptolemy and/or Aristobulos. Neither of these lads saw any great need to explain what they, and their intended audience, well knew. Thus we don’t posses detailed explanations of where the generals of the phalanx placed themselves or how the system of command and control functioned.
Frustrating - but at least it's interesting trying to figure it out.

:)
Paralus wrote:
So we are left to imagine – as did Stone in his film – how these things transpired. That Parmenion, commanding the left of the army, did so on foot is highly unlikely to me. That Coenus, Perdiccas and the others down to Craterus did so from the ranks of the dimoirites (“double-pay men”) also sits oddly with me. It is the more likely that they commanded their battalions from horseback and to the rear. During battle they may well have dismounted and fought on foot with their soldiers (as did Ptolemy in India) or moved to the front to lead charges or changes in direction (as did, perhaps, Coenus at Gaugamela with his taxis and Hephaestion with the agema of the hypaspists).
I do see what you mean about the practical advantages of Coenus and the others being on horseback. I suppose Oliver Stone had them on foot to help the average viewer understand that they were infantry officers - and they did have a horse there for Philotas to gallop off for help, though I don't suppose Philotas was in the right place, either.
Paralus wrote:
In the end we are not ever to know with any certainty. What is telling though is the description of Issus. Here we have a picture of the Macedonian phalanx in serious trouble. Alexander and his hypaspists have forged across the river and driven into the Persian line. The phalanx units attempt to follow but inevitably suffer a rupture when the centre units, due to the river banks, cannot keep up with their advancing right. The phalanx is penetrated and a terrible battle for survival ensues. We have descriptions of many officers meeting their ends but, significantly, only the one taxiarch – Ptolemy – is among them. That may be due to the fact that only the one battalion was in strife but it is more likely due to the fact that the taxiarch was not in those front ranks but to the rear on horse. Ptolemy may well have ridden into the fray or dismounted and took himself towards the breaches. We do not know. We do know that these officers survived the campaign largely intact.
Great explanation, thanks.
Paralus wrote:
Phoebus has described the likely scenario of trumpeters and heralds. The trumpeters are well attested and so the “runners” by definition of the fact that orders are described as being passed on (Issus and Guagamela as well as the Hydaspes). The two command centres were obviously Alexander on the right and Parmenio/Craterus on the left. Perdiccas/Coenus, who will have led the taxeis on the right, will have taken their lead from the king’s elite foot soldiers – the hypaspist corps and its agema – who will have stuck with their king no matter his movements. As Phoebus describes, commands will have been passed down the phalanx line as needed from here and also from the commander of the left.
Sorry, you've lost me now. If the hypaspist agema stuck with the king, who was dashing about on horseback, how could the taxeis take their lead from them, if thier job was to be this kind of point and fire weapon, going along in its tracks?
:?
Fiona
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Phoebus wrote: That, I do not know. A good voice would probably be good for most orders, as a block of 8x32 (and maybe 16x16) could hear shouted commands reasonably well... outside of battle. In this sense, Pressfield's imagination may not have been off when he surmised Phillip chose his "NCOs" (as he call them) for their steady voices and cadences.

While in battle, though, I believe a trumpet/bugle could serve ably. How many calls could there be when you are flush against other blocks of phalanx to your right and left? I imagine their range of calls was probably limited to "stand your ground", "fighting withdrawal" (where the phalanx cedes ground, step by step, while still presenting arms forward), "retreat", and perhaps something along the lines of "Holy Zeus, we are now being attacked from the rear!"
It could have got so confusing. Especially if you heard a signal that wasn't meant for you - honestly, my mind boggles at how they did it. This is what Nick Sekunda says about trumpets (though I guess he means bugles, really)
Command was very centralised. The king himself would give the army its orders, down to such details as when to take breakfast. At first these were all given by trumpet signals. We hear of trumpet signals for the attack, the withdrawal, the call to arms, strike camp, march, ground arms and the alarm. The signal would be given first of all by Alexander's trumpeter, and then taken up by the trumpeters attached to each unit. It may be that at the lower levels the regimental trumpeters added a unit prefix to their trumpet signals, as is the case in modern armies.
That's not too many different ones, and not all of those would be needed in battle, they match your list very well, though you described them more entertainingly! And like I think you said earlier, the phalanx would not need to move in that many different ways. So it seems as if commands internal to the lochos could be shouted (as in 'Keep that line straight!' but incoming orders from the high command would come by trumpet or by message-runner.
I think that the argument that standards would be useful for those message-runners to identify the unit they were looking for, is a good one.
Fiona
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Fiona wrote:[Sorry, you've lost me now. If the hypaspist agema stuck with the king, who was dashing about on horseback, how could the taxeis take their lead from them, if their job was to be this kind of point and fire weapon, going along in its tracks?
Ahhhh now, the key phrase is "dashing about". This immediately brings to mind the gallant image of Stone’s Alexander galloping out to his right at Gaugamela and then swinging left to gallop at the Persians. This, in my opinion, is as silly as it is nigh on impossible for reasons I’ll get to later.

In short, the personal foot-guard in Alexander’s time were the Royal Hypaspists. These were the sons of nobles and were led by men of similar blood: Admetos, Hephaestion (highly likely) and Seleucus. The rest of the Hypaspist corps comprised the strongest and the best of the rank and file Macedonians with officers promoted from within their ranks (Antigenes for example) and led by the “archihypaspist”, a noble such as Neoptolemus or Nicanor. The job of the unit was to protect the king – hence they are often referred to as “the Guards” and, when he was on foot, the agema would attach to him like a barnacle. In the battle line the hypaspist corps is always stationed alongside the Companion Cavalry and the king. Where he led they followed.

The two cogent descriptions are Issus and Gaugamela. Granicus too, although reduced by the sources to nothing more than a cavalry battle, sees the hypaspists alongside the king in the line. Interestingly, in this battle, the light troops – which will be the Agrianes and others – are described by Arrian as causing the Persians much discomfort having “forced their way in amongst the cavalry”. Not an overly glorious role – that belongs to Alexander and his cavalry in every battle description – nor one that generally tasks our sources overmuch and I rather suspect that this was one of their main roles in most battles.

At Issus the Macedonian line approaches the river, and the Persians, at an even pace. Within “missile range” the king decides to charge the Persian left across the river. Given the charge was made across a river it will not have been at any great pace. The Agrianes and the hypaspists will have followed smartly as part of the assault force. To the Hypaspists' immediate left, the battalion of Coenus will have marched – at “charging pace” to close the distance and lessen the effect of the missiles. The rest of the phalanx will have taken its cue and “hopped the bags” as they used to say in the Great War. It is here that, somewhere along the line toward the centre, the phalanx units broke ranks over the difficulties of covering the terrain in unison.

Eventually Alexander swung left with the successful “picked troops under his command” and rolled the Persian left into the centre and came to the rescue of his phalanx. Those “picked troops” which had won a “brilliant local success” on the right will have included his hypaspists and the deadly spearmen of the Agrianes.

Gaugamela, though, provides a much clearer example. Here Alexander, with a three tiered right wing, advanced whilst “inclined slightly to the right”. This is countered by the Persians who move to their left. Arrian then describes Alexander as continuing “his advance towards the right” until he cleared the prepared ground thus provoking the Persians into the first real move. None of this implies, in any way, a precipitous gallop or charge out to the right by Alexander. What it does describe, clearly in my view, is a measured advance forward and to the Macedonian right. Were it to have occurred in the way Stone has it, we will have had some rather exhausted Agrianes, “veteran mercenaries” and hyperventilated hypaspists. Not to mention a deserted phalanx. This was a concerted advance to the right. The Mercenary cavalry, Agrianes and others led the echeloned line in their direction. The Companion Cavalry and the rest followed. Then, at the critical moment, Alexander ceased his rightward drift and “charged” the Persian line directly to his front. His “wedge” was formed by the Companions and the other cavalry available to him and, importantly, “all of the heavy infantry in this sector of the field”. That heavy infantry is the hypaspist corps. All will have assailed the Persian line across a gap that was, by now, not terribly large (Medias’ cavalry had already engaged the Scythians earlier) and taken the brigade of Coenus with them.

This then is where Simmias, out to the left next to Craterus' battalion, likely had a terrible decision to make: follow the general advance or stand and fight as his infantry commader, Craterus, and Parmenio came under increasingly heavy assault and were rooted to the spot. He decided to stay put and play his part in the desperate bloodbath that was the holding action on the Macedonian left. He likely had little choice.

What then resulted was a desperate fight by the Persians toward their centre to escape the envelopment that the left swinging Cavalry, light troops, hypaspists and infantry were executing. The same situation as at Issus. At Hydaspes it resulted in the near annihilation of the Indian infantry.

In the end it comes down to “dashing” and just how far and fast one dashed. It seems evident to me that the dash was neither the sprint of the last stretch at Ascot or Churchill Downs and nor was the distance the “thoroughbred distance” (2,400 metres). Alexander’s successful assaults were combined with both light and heavy infantry. The hypaspists, and their agema, were in the thick of them all.

By the time Alexander was dead his hypaspist corps was an entity unto itself. As the Silver Shields they prided themselves on their service under Philip and Alexander and looked down their Macedonian noses at other commanders – as they appraised Antigonus’ phalanx at Gabiene. Their performance in that campaign in Iran demonstrated clearly what horribly proficient and ruthless killers they had become over their years of service.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4801
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Fiona wrote:I do see what you mean about the practical advantages of Coenus and the others being on horseback. I suppose Oliver Stone had them on foot to help the average viewer understand that they were infantry officers - and they did have a horse there for Philotas to gallop off for help, though I don't suppose Philotas was in the right place, either.
Hi Fiona,

You are right, of course - Philotas was in completely the wrong place, as he was commander of the Companions he was on the right wing throughout the battle. That being said, Parmenion was commanding cavalry on the left wing, and Stone has him commanding an infantry wing - on foot, where he couldn't command anything beyond himself.

But it was necessary for Stone to put Philotas there, so that he and Parmenion were both "together" in the fear that Alexander would "betray" Parmenion by not coming to support him. This was necessary because there wasn't enough opportunity for more than one other scene where Philotas could clash with Alexander before his arrest and execution.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply