05-07-2011, 10:10 AM
Well, Diodorus' language (i.e. "severe" surely referring to the main phalanx action which, if anything, lagged the start of the light-armed skirmishing off the flank) is what it is and we just have to make do as best we can with it, taking him at his word unless having reasonable evidence to the contrary. I guess "quite a while" is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. For me in this case, it's something well past the immediate 'walk-over' that a 6-to-1 manpower edge with the best horsemen in Greece should have provided Philip.
I agree with you very much that all the battle's action (mounted and afoot alike) was unfolding at the same time and not in isolated sequence as Diodorus would imply. However, that his descriptions can get repetitious is understandable. Having tried to describe some 250 engagements myself to date and still counting, I fully appreciate the difficulty of avoiding too much repetition - and my list is pretty puny by the standard of Diodorus' massive output. Really though, ancient Greek warfare must actually have been quite repetitious in fact, there only being a modest number of variations on the theme of rather standardized phalanx combat.
Given the apparent limitations we've been considering here of cavalry against better-ranging light infantry, I think it likely that the need to screen the horsemen and their valuable/vulnerable mounts was always a practical necessity and didn't suddenly appear in the mid-4th century. It seems that the topic of light infantry was generally left unexplored in favor of concentrating on hoplite action by most authors of the 5th century; thus, it's only rare events, such as at Spartolus (429 B.C.) where unusual circumstances (hoplites defeated by cavalry with light infantry after the main heavy infantry battle was over) tht give us a glimpse at the presence and actual importance of foot skirmishers cooperating with horsemen in that earlier era.
I agree with you very much that all the battle's action (mounted and afoot alike) was unfolding at the same time and not in isolated sequence as Diodorus would imply. However, that his descriptions can get repetitious is understandable. Having tried to describe some 250 engagements myself to date and still counting, I fully appreciate the difficulty of avoiding too much repetition - and my list is pretty puny by the standard of Diodorus' massive output. Really though, ancient Greek warfare must actually have been quite repetitious in fact, there only being a modest number of variations on the theme of rather standardized phalanx combat.
Given the apparent limitations we've been considering here of cavalry against better-ranging light infantry, I think it likely that the need to screen the horsemen and their valuable/vulnerable mounts was always a practical necessity and didn't suddenly appear in the mid-4th century. It seems that the topic of light infantry was generally left unexplored in favor of concentrating on hoplite action by most authors of the 5th century; thus, it's only rare events, such as at Spartolus (429 B.C.) where unusual circumstances (hoplites defeated by cavalry with light infantry after the main heavy infantry battle was over) tht give us a glimpse at the presence and actual importance of foot skirmishers cooperating with horsemen in that earlier era.
It\'s only by appreciating accurate accounts of real combat past and present that we can begin to approach the Greek hoplite\'s hard-won awareness of war\'s potential merits and ultimate limitations.
- Fred Eugene Ray (aka "Old Husker")
- Fred Eugene Ray (aka "Old Husker")
