Arrian\'s Cavalry Organisation

[D B Campbell]

I take ἐφεστάτω τοῖς πεζοῖς (Ektaxis 20) to mean "let it [viz. the entire cavalry] be drawn up behind the infantry". The verb ἐφίστημι can also mean to arrange, organize or draw up near something, but Polybius (another Greek military cove) clearly uses it to mean posting troops behind other troops (e.g. 16.18.7, on Antiochus' deployment for the Battle of Panium in 200 BC).

Here and elsewhere, Arrian could really have been a lot more helpful! :wink:

[Macedon]

Hi gentlemen! With all the changes going on in my life right now, I didn't have the opportunity to participate in the discussions here, but things are slowly calming down... Arrian, in my opinion, is actually quite clear on the fact that the cavalry is posted behind the infantry. Yes, sometimes the verb he uses can mean "next to" rather than "behind" which can be confusing but "behind" is the most common usage by far IMHO and the details that he gives further on leave little room for misinterpretation. Those of the cavalry with bows he has shooting over the infantry ranks and those with logchae javelins, kontoi spears, machaera swords and axes he has watching towards the flanks and "waiting for the signal". He also clearly states that should the Alans flee, the infantry ranks would open up and half of the "lochoi" would ride after them, the rest following in order in a manner so often described in the later Byzantine manuals.

[Renatus]

"Let the entire cavalry, arranged in eight ilai and lochoi . . ."

On that basis, Devoto's "eight [deep]" is an 'invention'.

[D B Campbell]

The document is undoubtedly a tricky one. Since this paragraph goes on to mention "on the one hand ... two lochoi, on the other hand ... six lochoi", it seems legitimate to take the original numeral eight as referring to the total number of cavalry bodies. When he initially writes of "ilai and lochoi", Arrian is perhaps drawing a distinction between the alae proper (of which he had three or four) and the cavalry contingents of the cohortes equitatae (of which he seems to have had eight). He could have been a lot clearer! :dizzy:

[Macedon]

The problem with the "8 deep" lies in the terminology used. A very eager reader could read the "lochoi eight" as 8 deep since a lochos was also a term for file, so I understand where this translation comes from even though I disagree. The lochoi here seem to be generic terms, which, in my opinion, means that he includes the eilae in the lochoi or maybe the eilae within the lochoi, thus making the lochoi a more generic term here for cavalry units. One of the reasons why I disagree with Devoto is the grammar used in the text but the main reason why is that in all places where Arrian speaks about depths, he uses a different terminology. However, as Duncan writes, Arrian could have been a lot clearer or more specific as to the exact nature of those lochoi units...

[Renatus]

The problem with the "8 deep" lies in the terminology used. A very eager reader could read the "lochoi eight" as 8 deep since a lochos was also a term for file, so I understand where this translation comes from even though I disagree.

The problem with Devoto's translation here is that he does not seem to be thinking of lochos as a file. He translates 'eilas kai lochous' as 'troops and basic units', 'basic unit' apparently being his customary term for lochos.

[Macedon]

Still, I was talking about the possibility of the translation to be (at least partially) correct. This specific part of the text had troubled me too in the past as to whether it could indeed be translated as 8 deep but eventually I decided that it would not be a good option. For Arrian to use the term as both "unit" and "file" it would not be strange, but then, Devoto, as you correctly suggest should have decided instead of mixing up all "possible" translations...

[antiochus]

Macedon wrote:
The lochoi here seem to be generic terms, which, in my opinion, means that he includes the eilae in the lochoi or maybe the eilae within the lochoi, thus making the lochoi a more generic term here for cavalry units. One of the reasons why I disagree with Devoto is the grammar used in the text but the main reason why is that in all places where Arrian speaks about depths, he uses a different terminology.

Arrian describes the frontage of the army by units and that is why I believe the lochoi like yourself is a generic term for a cavalry squadron. I will go as far as to say the depth of the cavalry is six squadrons deep, therefore the six lochoi.

Duncan wrote:
The document is undoubtedly a tricky one. Since this paragraph goes on to mention "on the one hand ... two lochoi, on the other hand ... six lochoi", it seems legitimate to take the original numeral eight as referring to the total number of cavalry bodies.

Turning to your translation, “in the middle of the phalanx, six lochoi.” I’m taking the phalanx to mean the legionaries of the two legions, and the six lochoi are stationed behind and in the middle of the legionaries, Being in the middle of two legions the six lochoi face four cavalry lanes, giving a total of 24 squadrons for the six lochoi, deployed four squadrons (one eilae) wide by six squadrons deep (six eilae) numbering 768 men, with half (12 squadrons or 384 men) being horse archers. By including the remaining two lochoi (flank screens) in relation to the legion’s frontage I still end up with a total of 48 squadrons, which could be organised into eight ilai each of six squadrons. So on each flank of the 24 pursuit squadrons there are 12 squadrons horizontally deployed one ilai wide by two ilai deep (six squadrons wide by two deep) and in the centre, four ilai vertically deployed one squadron wide by six squadrons deep. When the Alans are defeated, the two ilai on each wing, with a depth of four men, can move out behind the legion and occupy the flanks of the legions are a reserve for the wings, while the 24 squadrons of the centre are committed to the pursuit.

I have found that the difference between the Romans and the Greeks is the Roman system has no need of a file system. What I believe Arrian is doing is constructing the Roman ordo system to a file system.

Macedon wrote:
He also clearly states that should the Alans flee, the infantry ranks would open up and half of the "lochoi" would ride after them, the rest following in order in a manner so often described in the later Byzantine manuals.

The creation of cavalry lanes dates to the Servian constitution. At the battle of Lake Regillus in 499 BC, the Roman cavalry are mentioned being mingled with the infantry. The battle between the Etruscans and the Cumeans, Dionysius mentions the cavalry being mingled with the infantry. At Lake Regillus, because some of the commanders on the Roman side and the Latins met in the middle of the battlefield and fought single combat on horseback, historians have regarded this a Homeric invention and therefore dismissed much of the battle accounts in Livy’s books I to V, and Dionysius covering the same periods. What is overlooked with the Romans, Latins and Etruscans plus many other Italiote peoples is the cavalry were deployed mounted in the cavalry lanes between the infantry.

At the second battle at the Allia in 389 BC the Roman cavalry frontally attacked the centre of the Praenestine infantry line, and if the Praenestine infantry ranks broke, this was to be exploited by the Roman infantry. (Livy 6 29 2) The battles of the first and second Samnite war mention frequent references to the Roman cavalry frontally charging the Samnite infantry in a bid to break up their front ranks. One such attempt, during the battle of Mount Gaurus in 343 BC, failed. (Livy 7 33 8-11) In 325 BC, at Imbrinium, when the Roman cavalry failed to break the Samnite line after several frontal charges, Lucius Cominius, a military tribune, took off the horses’ bridles and spurred the horses on so hard that they broke the Samnites on a broad front. The infantry followed up and exploited the success of the cavalry charge. (Livy 8 30)

When facing an Etruscan army in the district of Rusellae in 302 BC, the dictator Marcus Valerius Maximus left intervals between the files of the Roman infantry wide enough for the Roman cavalry to charge through. The Etruscans, being unprepared for a cavalry attack were disordered, and when the Roman infantry pressed home the attack the Etruscans routed. (Livy 10 5 7) At the battle of Tifernum in 297 BC, Livy describes how the Roman cavalry frontally attacked the Samnite infantry:

“the Romans led by the two young tribunes, dashed out in front of the standards, and their sudden appearance created almost as much confusion amongst their own people as amongst the enemy. The Samnite line stood perfectly firm against the galloping squadrons, nowhere could they be forced back or broken. Finding their attempt a failure, the cavalry retired behind the standards and took no further part in the fighting.” (Livy 10 14 15) At the battle of Aquilonia in 293 BC the consul Papirius ordered the military tribunes and centurions to open the ranks of the infantry and allow a passage for the cavalry to pass through. (Livy 10 41 8-9)

All the above attacks were done by the Roman cavalry passing between the cavalry lanes created by the ordo system. Scipio’s formation at Zama is nothing new. He was following the standard doctrine of creating cavalry lanes. The practice of having cavalry lanes continues with Arrian and beyond. Wheeler in his paper “The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire Part II” mentions the practice of cavalry lanes can be found in Maurice, the Apparatus Bellicus and including some of the Muslim theorist (the Tabsirak) written for Saladin.

There is a reason why the Romans increase the size of the legion they increase the size of the cavalry. They are maintaining the frontage of the cavalry lanes can accommodate the squadron’s frontage, which is different for the 200 cavalry and the 300 cavalry per legion.

[Robert Vermaat]

Ah, that makes it clearer! What a confusing translation...

Be careful which translation you use, some have been knon to emend mising text.

[D B Campbell]

Be careful which translation you use, some have been knon to emend mising text.

Just to be clear: I have translated the Teubner Greek text without embellishment.