06-01-2010, 05:59 AM
Hi Fred / Old Husker.
Thought to transport this discussion to a new thread so as to leave the othismosmatics to their devices – with or without Ventolin. Just a couple of thoughts to start the ball rolling. Likely it will develop into a world cup...
I often wonder at our predilection for mathematical harmony. Rzepka, in his paper "The Units of Alexander's Army", too advances his thesis partly on Diodorus, partly on his (incorrect in my view) belief in a constitutional federal Macedonian state and partly on the basis of mathematical ratios. Whilst I agree the Parthenon was made with the latter in mind I don’t always agree that Greek and Macedonian armies were predicated on such strict operational mathematical ratios.
We actually aren’t told much about this advance force – unit details are not recorded. All we are told here is that Alexander managed to get across 4,000 phalanx infantry and 1500 horse. Once there he orders the “infantry to lean upon the corn with their pikes held transversely” – not infantry so armed but “the infantry”. The cavalry followed behind the advancing sarisa-armed infantry. When out of the corn he “commanded Nicanor to lead the phalanx in a square whilst Alexander himself led the horse round to the right wing” and so he commanded from the right and on horse rather than the centre.
Why a square? The only logical reason is that this was, in fact, no “mini phalanx” but simply what was got across as the square is more usually formed for defence (I could do a “Rzepka” here and point out the coincidence of the Silver Shields performing this at Gabiene…). We are told that the Getae did not “sustain even the first charge of the cavalry” and so the initial confrontation was won by cavalry only – the infantry squared with the “closely-locked order of the phalanx” terrifying them. What happens after is instructive: Alexander led “his phalanx carefully along the side of the river, to prevent his infantry being anywhere surrounded by the Getae lying in ambush” and so we can readily assume no light infantry nor light cavalry – they are nowhere attested.
It is unlikely in the extreme that the first troops taken were not the hypaspists – all or most – as the foot commander is the archihypaspist Nikanor. Even if they are half or one quarter, the above action description is redolent of a sarisa-armed phalanx.
Other attested “advance” forces do not necessarily comply with a one to three ratio. This same army makes its way to Illyria to confront Glaucius. Here, after their terrifying drill display, Alexander makes an assault after recrossing the river with “the shield-bearing guards, the Agrianians, the archers, and the brigades of Perdiccas and Coenus”. Alexander is unconcerned about ratios and mini-phalanxes in this action. Indeed he would be as unconcerned when he made it to Asia as his force for Hydaspes and other actions show.
Your figure of 3,000 as “normal” phalanx brigade matches Rzepka’s. Although he doesn't say so, he must base this on the only preserved numbers for the Macedonian army before the anabasis – those of Diodorus (17.17.3-5) where he states that Alexander took 12,000 Macedonian foot. He then states that Antipater was left with 12,000 foot; “the soldiers left in Europe, which fell under the command of Antipater, amounted to 12,000 foot and 1,500 cavalry”. This has been near universally accepted to mean that the Macedonian infantry was 24,000 strong (hence we have such a figure postulated for Chaeronaea). Bosworth (Legacy of Alexander) pointed out that it is nowhere stated that the 12,000 left with Antipater were all Macedonian – they most likely were not. Diodorus lists the contingents of the inavasion army and gives only a total for the home army: only the size and not the composition is compared. The “home” army was little more than a third of the invasion force and – as he notes – if it were composed similarly Macedonians might represent some 4,500 or so.
I have no disagreement with the notion of six recruiting districts as Rzepka and many others postulate but I do not think that the normal phalanx unit was 3,000 (and therefore hypaspists to the number of 6,000). I’d think that the basic “tactical unit” (or syntagma) of the phalanx was the 16x16 unit of 256. If so, this is also the likely recruiting unit. Perhaps 10 of these existed per district and so, agreeing with Rzepka’s eminently logical view that units of the entire army were taken east rather than some whole districts, we may guess that three standing syntagma from each were left with Antipater (some 4,600)?
Truth is we don’t know and likely won’t.
Hypapsists, phalanx and other bits anon...
Thought to transport this discussion to a new thread so as to leave the othismosmatics to their devices – with or without Ventolin. Just a couple of thoughts to start the ball rolling. Likely it will develop into a world cup...
Quote:Your observation that Alexander's small armament crossing the Danube clearly included phalangites/sarissaphoroi is a very important point. My view on this is that the common ratio of hypaspists/hoplites to pikemen in the Macedonian army at this time was 1-to-3, with hypaspists organized in 1,000-man units and phalangites in 3,000-man units, the number of units of each maintaining this same 1-to-3 ratio (3 phalangite units for every one of hypaspists). Thus, the advance force at the Danube was a fully integrated 'mini-phalanx' in proper proportion, its 4,000 heavy infantry including one unit of hypaspists […] With such a diverse force, Alexander was ready to meet any sort of threat by deploying in Philip's standard fashion (hoplites and heavy cavalry on the right for offense, phalangites at center and left to hold the line, light horsemen to seucure the left flank, and light footmen for screening the cavalry on both ends of the line and post-battle pursuit). When deployed for action, Alexander would have taken charge of the left/center of the phalanx (as he had at Chaeronea and would continue to do until such time as he reorganized his methods for the Asian campaign) and Nicanor the right (with his own hypaspists and any Companion horse on hand).
I often wonder at our predilection for mathematical harmony. Rzepka, in his paper "The Units of Alexander's Army", too advances his thesis partly on Diodorus, partly on his (incorrect in my view) belief in a constitutional federal Macedonian state and partly on the basis of mathematical ratios. Whilst I agree the Parthenon was made with the latter in mind I don’t always agree that Greek and Macedonian armies were predicated on such strict operational mathematical ratios.
We actually aren’t told much about this advance force – unit details are not recorded. All we are told here is that Alexander managed to get across 4,000 phalanx infantry and 1500 horse. Once there he orders the “infantry to lean upon the corn with their pikes held transversely” – not infantry so armed but “the infantry”. The cavalry followed behind the advancing sarisa-armed infantry. When out of the corn he “commanded Nicanor to lead the phalanx in a square whilst Alexander himself led the horse round to the right wing” and so he commanded from the right and on horse rather than the centre.
Why a square? The only logical reason is that this was, in fact, no “mini phalanx” but simply what was got across as the square is more usually formed for defence (I could do a “Rzepka” here and point out the coincidence of the Silver Shields performing this at Gabiene…). We are told that the Getae did not “sustain even the first charge of the cavalry” and so the initial confrontation was won by cavalry only – the infantry squared with the “closely-locked order of the phalanx” terrifying them. What happens after is instructive: Alexander led “his phalanx carefully along the side of the river, to prevent his infantry being anywhere surrounded by the Getae lying in ambush” and so we can readily assume no light infantry nor light cavalry – they are nowhere attested.
It is unlikely in the extreme that the first troops taken were not the hypaspists – all or most – as the foot commander is the archihypaspist Nikanor. Even if they are half or one quarter, the above action description is redolent of a sarisa-armed phalanx.
Other attested “advance” forces do not necessarily comply with a one to three ratio. This same army makes its way to Illyria to confront Glaucius. Here, after their terrifying drill display, Alexander makes an assault after recrossing the river with “the shield-bearing guards, the Agrianians, the archers, and the brigades of Perdiccas and Coenus”. Alexander is unconcerned about ratios and mini-phalanxes in this action. Indeed he would be as unconcerned when he made it to Asia as his force for Hydaspes and other actions show.
Your figure of 3,000 as “normal” phalanx brigade matches Rzepka’s. Although he doesn't say so, he must base this on the only preserved numbers for the Macedonian army before the anabasis – those of Diodorus (17.17.3-5) where he states that Alexander took 12,000 Macedonian foot. He then states that Antipater was left with 12,000 foot; “the soldiers left in Europe, which fell under the command of Antipater, amounted to 12,000 foot and 1,500 cavalry”. This has been near universally accepted to mean that the Macedonian infantry was 24,000 strong (hence we have such a figure postulated for Chaeronaea). Bosworth (Legacy of Alexander) pointed out that it is nowhere stated that the 12,000 left with Antipater were all Macedonian – they most likely were not. Diodorus lists the contingents of the inavasion army and gives only a total for the home army: only the size and not the composition is compared. The “home” army was little more than a third of the invasion force and – as he notes – if it were composed similarly Macedonians might represent some 4,500 or so.
I have no disagreement with the notion of six recruiting districts as Rzepka and many others postulate but I do not think that the normal phalanx unit was 3,000 (and therefore hypaspists to the number of 6,000). I’d think that the basic “tactical unit” (or syntagma) of the phalanx was the 16x16 unit of 256. If so, this is also the likely recruiting unit. Perhaps 10 of these existed per district and so, agreeing with Rzepka’s eminently logical view that units of the entire army were taken east rather than some whole districts, we may guess that three standing syntagma from each were left with Antipater (some 4,600)?
Truth is we don’t know and likely won’t.
Hypapsists, phalanx and other bits anon...
Paralus|Michael Park
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους
Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους
Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!
Academia.edu
