Did Alexander command the PHALANX at Chaeronea?

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

beausefaless wrote:Another semi-modern day source in favor of the cavalry scenario; The Theban Sacred Band was positioned in the place of honor on the far right wing of the Athenian-Theban army and the Athenian infantry on the left. Philip commanded the right wing of Macedonian horse while placed his eighteen year old son, Alexander, in command of the Thessalian cavalry (Dodge 128).
Hmmm, so Theodore Ayrault Dodge says it was a cavalry battle also. Very, very interesting. Thanks for this. I had wondered if there was an academic version of patient zero - a historian of the nineteenth or twentieth century who was the first to claim that Alexander led the cavalry. Is this the 1890 amply illustrated book that can currently be found in a re-release at Barnes and Noble? I had picked it up in the store one day and found it fascinating, but replete with errors as compared with more recent studies. The earliest biography of Alexander that I own is a 1900 publication by Jacob Abbott that I had bought for the illustrations but didn't have the heart to remove from the book. (Note to myself: Scan the drawings, stupid!) Abbott, a proponent of the deterioration of character premise - he even has a chapter of the book with that particular heading - begins by strictly following the sources on the battle of Chaeronea, and then adds his own embellishment:
In the arrangements for this battle, Philip gave the command of one of the wings of the army to Alexander, while he reserved the other for himself. He felt some solicitude in giving his young son so important a charge, but he endeavored to guard against the danger of an unfortunate result by putting the ablest generals on Alexander's side, while he reserved those on whom he could place less reliance for his own. Thus organized, the army went into battle.
This early author also states later that Bessus was sent to "Sysigambis to be dealt with, at Susa, as her revenge might direct." A further excerpt also left me grinning, and although it doesn't have anything to do with this thread I'll post it now for the entertainment of Pothosians everywhere.
During the whole of Alexander's career Parmenio had been his principal lieutenant-general, and he had always placed his greatest reliance upon him in all trying emergencies. He was cool, calm, intrepid, sagacious. He held Alexander back from many rash enterprises, and was the efficient means of his accomplishing most of his plans. It is the custom among all nations to give kings the glory of all that is effected by their generals and officers; and the writers of those days would, of course, in narrating the exploits of the Macedonian army, exaggerate the share which Alexander had in their performances, and underrate those of Parmenio. But in modern times, many impartial readers, in reviewing calmly these events, think that there is reason to doubt whether Alexander, if he had set out on his great expedition without Parmenio, would have succeeded at all. :!: :!:


Hmm, after reading this one could be forgiven for wondering to whom Abbott credits Alexander's successes after the death of Parmenio! He doesn't - he skirts the issue completely, moving from the death of Cleitus to the mutiny in India via one sentence thus: After the events narrated in the last chapter, Alexander continued, for two or three years, his expeditions and conquests in Asia, and in the course of them he met with a great variety of adventures which cannot be here particularly described. A single page follows on the wounding of Alexander by the Mali and we're back in Babylon! (This is a 242 page book, by the way.) Methinks we have here a literary descendant of the Worthington/Hanson school of opinion. Tarn's veering into the opposite direction becomes more understandable now.

Okay, I've digressed enough. All I'll add is that since beginning this post I broke off to look for another reference and discovered that I do own a nineteenth century author - a 1900 edition of the Rev. J. Williams 1829 work on Alexander. All he says about Chaeronea is that Alexander "commanded the left wing of the army at the celebrated battle of Chaeronea, and defeated the Thebans before Philip had been equally successful against the Athenians." This is supported by the sources.

Best regards,
Last edited by amyntoros on Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Do you think there would have been no victory unless Alexander was on a horse? Frankly, I think that particular train of thought diminishes Alexander somewhat. It’s as if to say that he couldn’t have won any battle that didn’t involve him leading a frontline deployment of cavalry.
No, of course not.He could do equally well on foot too, and we have seen that afterwards.But he was the prince.And the prince must have been mounted, just like his father.As for leading cavalry, that i dont know.Maybe everyone just assumed that Alexander led the cavalry because he was probably riding Buchephalus, and we all know the story of Alexander and Buchephalus, a story that gave him prestige,and he was the prince.
Last edited by Efstathios on Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

On the one hand you have Lord Byron who was an admirer of ancient Greek culture setting off from England to go and fight along with the Greeks for their liberation against the Turks,and died for this cause, and on the other hand you have professors that spend their whole lives studying ancient Greece to serve anti-hellenic interests, just for the money.Just to get their books and researches funded.Pathetic?

Money corrupts.It even corrupted the Spartans, why not scholars?
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Efstathios wrote:Of course there is also the Badian-Borza logic, and someone can say that it was pure luck, or that the sources just exaggerate.Well all the sources cant exagerrate about all Alexander's battles.All the sources and for all the battles.No.And if you take it by logic again, all the sources agree that Alexander never lost a battle and showed great strategical mind in most of them, so that must be true.So if that is true then his victory over the Sacred Band must be also true.
Efstathios wrote:...on the other hand you have professors that spend their whole lives studying ancient Greece to serve anti-hellenic interests, just for the money.Just to get their books and researches funded.Pathetic?
The "anti-Hellenic" bombast needs leaving out as does the comment that begot the response.

Addressing the issue Efstathios, you have in the past lectured me on the probity of the sources. In this instance, those sources do not place Philip or Alexander "in command" of the cavalry. Nothing is mentioned of the cavalry and the description of the Macedonian left "rupturing" the allied line GÇô an up until then unbroken wall of hoplites GÇô much better suits an infantry engagement. Philip did not spend his entire career in a saddle. It appears to me that the only exaggerating done here has been wrought much more recently than the sources.
Efstathios wrote:Again lets not forget that these people that wrote these books lived at an era that these events were near, and people knew.For example the Thebeans knew who had defeated the Sacred Band.So the sources dont lie about matters like that.
The thing here is that Alexander and Philip's most seasoned generals broke and defeated the allied left. A part of that left was the Sacred Band who GÇô unlike the others GÇô chose to stand their ground rather than flee and ostensibly died to a man. As Hammond (Philip of Macedon) describes it:
The Sacred Band of 300 men was surrounded. Alexander was said to have lead the attack against them (Plu Alex. 9.2), probably with the pikemen, whose weapons outreached those of the Thebans.
Diodorus wrote his work in the later part of the first century BC GÇô not exactly "near" to the time he is writing about. He most likely is using Diyllus of Athens as his source GÇô Ephorus having closed off with the siege of Perithus. (Just on which, did Philip attack the walls on horse because he was King?) Diodorus used (for his description of Philip's career) four sources who were alive at the time and so wrote for a contemporary audience (Theopompus, Ephorus {and his son Demophilus}, Callisthenes and Marsayas Macedon). Diyllus most likely wrote at the beginning of the third century and within living memory of the events. It would follow that in matters of obvious fact that they would be reasonably accurate. Yet, Diodorus does not state that either Philip nor Alexander (and the experienced generals) were on horse. Nor does he describe a cavalry action. That is most likely GÇô in my view GÇô because the cavalry performed as normal in Greek battles: chase and mopping up.

The entire rendition of the battle that comes down to us indicates that the Greeks took up a defensive position. They chose that part of the plain where their infantry filled it and ceded to Philip the initiative. Which initiative he duly took. If the descriptions are reliable, then the key to this battle was Philip's masterful leadership of his phalanx brigades in feigning a steady, fighting withdrawal to draw the Athenian right out of the defensive position and eventually GÇô when he reversed and attacked GÇô discombobulate the allied line, most likely creating the weakness exploited by the Macedonian centre and left. Something rather difficult to do, in my opinion, if not commanding on foot with the phalanx. I am with Amynotoros here: Philip is much underrated as a general and a tactician. This was Philip's battle, won with Philip's tactics. It smacks of the classic Greek infantry battle.

There seems GÇô to me GÇô little room for a cavalry dominated action such as Gaugamela. I cannot recall a Greek battle where a charge of horse has "ruptured" a hoplite wall. Especially one ensconced in a defensive position.
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
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Post by dean »

Hello,

Paralus said,
The fact is that sort of action, and the mopping up those retreating, is not something that fits the mould of the prodigious military genius who won the day at Chaeronea by dint of his valour and brilliance.
Hmnn mopping up- he certainly didnt' mop up Demosthones who was legging it out of the way as fast as his little legs could carry him.

Someone suggested that maybe in reailty, it was Philip who did the nasty to the Theban Sacred Band and it just occured to me that maybe- Philip would have enjoyed this- as he was held hostage there for three years. :)

Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

The "anti-Hellenic" bombast needs leaving out as does the comment that begot the response.
Couldnt resist that

you have in the past lectured me
I wouldnt call it a lecture.Just expressing oppinion with great confidence :D

I am with Amynotoros here: Philip is much underrated as a general and a tactician. This was Philip's battle, won with Philip's tactics. It smacks of the classic Greek infantry battle.
And we are all in agreement here.Philip was one of the greatest generals ever.And yes that was his victory, not Alexanders'.Alexander had a job to do, and that was to try and defeat the Sacred Band which was maybe the toughest part of the Thebeans and their allied forces.So he played a major role too.

Did he do it with the help of Philip's Generals?Here is what i believe:

Alexander had the command.He listened to the Generals' advices and then made his calls.Afterwards in Asia Alexander would hear his companions and Generals' advices and would make his calls.Sometimes he did not do what the Generals' suggested.But firstly he would listen to them.Most of the times he would weigh their oppinion.So it isnt that Alexander always did his own thing without listening to his Generals.In Chaeronea the most probable senario is that he did what the Generals' suggested and maybe it was his own assesment too.Probably he didnt make a call that opposed the Generals' advices because the sources would have mentioned it.It would have been one of the highlights of that day.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Efstathios wrote:During the Persian campaign Alexander and his officers were mounted.They had cavalry.I dont find a reason why not having cavalry in Chaeronia too.Would the Macedonian army go to Chaeronia without cavalry?
For beginners, see Alejandro's post re the swans. As well, no one is suggesting there were no Macedonian cavalry at Chaeronea GÇô quite the opposite. What is being questioned is whether Alexander was commanding the Companion Cavalry and whether or not he "ruptured" the Theban hoplite phalanx with it.

Diodorus does not state this at all. As well, the rendition of the battle GÇô Hammond's for example GÇô that is currently the "norm" includes Alexander and his companions swinging to the right to take the phalanx from the rear. Diodorus' description says nothing of the sort. It states that "the same success was won by his companions" and that "gaps constantly opened in the front. From there we learn that the Sacred Band, refusing to flee, stood their ground and were annihilated. ("Philip, after the fight, took a view of the slain, and came to the place where the three hundred that fought his phalanx lay dead togetherGǪ" Plu. Pel. 18.5 )

It seems a leap to have Alexander and the Companions swinging anywhere on the extant source material. It does, though, seem an excellent interpolation of other battles in Asia to follow. Particularly Issus when the same occurred, except in the reverse. Here Alexander's charge took the lighter Persian infantry and forced them back. Alexander then turned (having "ruptured" the front) left towards Darius and eventually the rescue of his own - near fatally broken - phalanx on the river.
Efstathios wrote:Alexander had a job to do, and that was to try and defeat the Sacred Band which was maybe the toughest part of the Thebeans and their allied forces.So he played a major role too.
No. Alexander was "stationed" on the left with Philip's most seasoned generals. It was his responsibility to carry out his father's plans and co-ordinate the left wing of the Macedonian line. A part of that purview will have been the Sacred Band which anchored the Theban/Allied right. We have no information about whom, if anyone, commanded the Macedonian centre (though we can be certain someone did). Alexander will have had some 8-10,000 Theban and Allied hoplites on his side of the field engaging his attention of which the Sacred Band represented 3.75% at most. Most of the information he will have been concerned about will have related to the success or otherwise of his father's machinations on the right to break the allied defensive line as well as the efficacy of his phalanx against the Theban hoplites (still the best in Greece at this time) when his echeloned end of the line made contact. As it happened, Philip's tactics worked a treat on the far less experienced Athenians who pursued the "retreating" Philip and his phalanx to their left, stretching the allied line whilst Alexander's echeloned wing advanced onto the ever extending Boeotioan/Allied line. Philip's advance then commenced the rout.

It would appear the demise of the Sacred Band was GÇô in the end GÇô something akin to the heavily romanticised "Custer's last stand".
Efstathios wrote:He could do equally well on foot too, and we have seen that afterwards.But he was the prince.And the prince must have been mounted, just like his father.As for leading cavalry, that i dont know.
If the battle on the Macedonian right is as we have handed to us, then Philip GÇô in my view GÇô led on foot surrounded by the Royal Guard of the Pezhetairoi and thus was not mounted. This was the fulcrum of battle; this was where it would go wrong should it go that way. The King needed to be in contact GÇô direct contact GÇô with his phalanx and its command structure so as to execute the movements that lured the Allied hoplites from their well chosen defensive position.
alejandro wrote:Also, and playing devil's advocate (ie, supporter of the "mounted Alexander" claim :) ), I would like to know if Plutarch's use of the term "phalanx" refers ONLY to infantry soldiers, or is also used as a synonymous of "army". In the latter case, the argument for an infantry-only battle, though still possible, is much less appealing.
G'day Devil's advocate!

Whilst that which grabbed Plutarch's attention was not necessarily military, indeed he can be rather dismissive of military matters at times; I doubt he will have used the term "phalanx" to describe an entire army.
alejandro wrote:There is certainly room for ex-post embellishment, but at the same time, if it was the case, it is at least surprising that Diodorus mentions that Alexander was surrounded by some of Philip's most seasoned generals, as if implying he was not "actually" in charge of the left wing, though he was nominally. A rather unlikely remark if you are an author willing to praise Alexander's prowess!
It is not necessarily Diodorus who is that author. Diodorus is not always a judicious editor or copier of his sources. He will occasionally let us know just who it is he might be summarising, paraphrasing or garrotting (as the case may be). Following Hammond, it is likely that he paraphrases Diyllus of Athens here (writing of these events in the first decade or so of the third century). It may or may not be this source who may well be reflecting the "interpolation" of the account of the battle. Diodorus may well have had access to material which indicated that Alexander was indeed in command of the left GÇô with a seasoned general staff (he was eighteen) GÇô but on foot or that he was mounted and won the day and he chose what to record. We don't know. Diodorus, though, seems to see no reason to get carried away with Alexander's not inconsiderable part in the battle or to claim that either Philip or his son were in command of the horse.

I think that distinction devolves upon more modern authors.
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
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Post by dean »

Hello,

Just looking at the full Pothos timeline regarding Charonea, it says,
August 2 - Battle of Chaeronea: King Philip defeats Greeks, Alexander commands cavalry
Does this mean that the time line might have to be updated/modified? Robin Lane Fox also states in his book that Alexander lead the cavalry at the battle.

Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

dean wrote:Just looking at the full Pothos timeline regarding Charonea, it says,
August 2 - Battle of Chaeronea: King Philip defeats Greeks, Alexander commands cavalry
Does this mean that the time line might have to be updated/modified?
Well, it can't be proved that Alexander didn't lead the cavalry. The problem is that there seems to be no evidence of this in the ancient sources, and any statements to this end are only conjecture. However, the modern historians who claim that Alexander was in charge of the Companion cavalry do not qualify their statements in any way. IMO, it is one thing to say that Alexander might have led the cavalry, another to state without fear of contradiction that he did.

It's interesting that the Pothos timeline has him in command of the cavalry. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I'd never questioned this myself because I'd read it in so many modern histories. Whoever wrote the timeline (Nick?) must have felt the same.
Robin Lane Fox also states in his book that Alexander lead the cavalry at the battle.
Do you have the page number for this, Dean? I had looked briefly through the index in Fox's book and couldn't find any reference, so I ignored him. Another historian for the list, huh? :)

Best regards,
Last edited by amyntoros on Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
dean
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Las Palmas, Spain

Post by dean »

Hello,

Yes, of course,
it is to be found on page 42 and although the word Charonea isn't mentioned it is clear that he is referring to it.
"Two years before he had galloped at the head of a cavalry charge which had defeated the army of Philip's Greek enemies and after the battle he had gone as one of the three envoys to Athens, the city which so affected his later politics in Greece."
oh, and it is in chapter two of the book.
Best regards,
Dean :D
carpe diem
kennyxx
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by kennyxx »

Just a short note. Its fair to say Alexander was at the battle and given a field command by Philip. Alexander was a cavalry boy and a very good cavalry soldier. If we can assume there was Cavalry at the battle can any of the detractors give good reason why Alexanner would not be at the head of any cavalry at the battle.

Macedonian classic tactics were hammer and anvil mostly with the Cavalry on the wings a classic formation through many generations of warfare. The only the only examples I can remember of totally useless cavalry are the Roman Generations of rich boys on horses.

I challenge any Porthonians to give a GOOD Logical reason why Alexander would NOT be at the head of a cavalry union at this battle. I cant it makes sense that there were cavalry at the battle and Alexander led them. Philip had all the tools and resources of his war machine and at such a pivotal battle Im sure he was well tooled up.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

A gestalt thing

Post by Paralus »

kennyxx wrote: Alexander was a cavalry boy and a very good cavalry soldier. If we can assume there was Cavalry at the battle can any of the detractors give good reason why Alexanner would not be at the head of any cavalry at the battle.
G'day Kenny.

His father was "a cavalry boy" as well GÇô he was king GÇô but there seems to be much more acceptance of his being on foot that the son. Now, why would that be? Philip is credited GÇô rightly on my opinion GÇô with the "professionalising" and training of the Macedonian army in infantry tactics and the sarissa (if not its introduction). He will likely not have accomplished this on horseback. His son too will have been schooled in both the use of the weapon and the phalanx GÇô again, something not likely to have occurred on horseback.

There remains the distinct impression that this was an out and out infantry battle. The Allied phalanx was in a well prepared defensive position and, although Philip did indeed take some 2,000 cavalry to the battle, it is interesting that its actions are nowhere described in the sources. As well, the sources relate that Philip pitched camp and waited. One might suggest he was re-assessing the strong defensive position of the enemy hoplite wall and what that might mean to the cavalry tactics he'd pre-conceived. He may have waited on a move by the allied forces. A move which, in the end, he conjured by his tactics. Those genes the son well and truly inherited.
kennyxx wrote: If we can assume there was Cavalry at the battle can any of the detractors give good reason why Alexanner would not be at the head of any cavalry at the battle...

The only the only examples I can remember of totally useless cavalry are the Roman Generations of rich boys on horses...

I challenge any Porthonians to give a GOOD Logical reason why Alexander would NOT be at the head of a cavalry union at this battle.
On the first, to say that Alexander commanded the left and was on foot whilst doing so, should not make one a "detractor". There is nothing demeaning in Alexander leading the left wing in the last classic Greek infantry clash on foot. Pelopidas, Epaminondas and Agesilaos (to name a few) will likey have run you through for such a suggestion!

The cavalry wasn't totally useless. Its employment will have been limited by the terrain and the position the allied army had taken. Hammond's description in Philip of Macedon is about the way I've always pictured it GÇô aside from Alexander being on horse. If you can get a copy or borrow one, have a read. As a bloke who fought in Greece, he knows his way around. His identification of the battlefield seems spot on and his description of the relative positions is clear. It would be: he's walked it and mapped it out in situ (a reason why Green's Armada From Athens is such a gem GÇô for those interested in ancient Greek history outside of Alexander)

In the end, Alexander may have been on horse. We don't really know. The problem is, all source accounts we have fail utterly to mention that he was leading the cavalry GÇô Companion or otherwise. That may just be "glitch" in the sources but, it is one common to them all. Again, my take on the relevant passages is that no distinction is made between Philip and Alexander as to how they are described on the field. Yet, one (Philip) is more generally assumed to have lead the right on foot and Alexander the left on horse. Perhaps I should attend that Alexander seminar in New Zealand, with Professor Bosworth, and have the temerity to put it to the good fellow?

It's a gestalt thing. The enduring picture we have of him is on horse. A picture crafted and painted on the dusty battlefields of Asia.

(Hey Kenny: If you've still got my email address, flick me something. Can't remeber which thread you posted your new on on)
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
kennyxx
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:14 pm

Post by kennyxx »

Paralus Hail

As you say nothing can be proved one way or another. But looking at it in the ways of MR Spock with logic. We take the quotes that the Sacred Band were destroyed to the last man. Now that can be taken 2 ways the First that they as the Spartans did fought to the last man. Or alternatively they were taken from the back to stop them retreating.

I dont know if the Theban war code was the same as a Spartan to come back with the shield or on it. Indeed the Macedonian Phalanx pressing against the Thebans may have defeated them but who knows as you have said the Macedonian Phalanx was unstopable if held together on mass. But also as you say if it bends splits or becomes uncohesive it becomes vulnerable to well trained and discipline enemies with the nerve to hold and stand. The Battle at Cheronea was a river so its maybe likely or indeed risky that the Macedonian line would split. I do believe philip had cavalry and that he used them with the sole purpose to get behind and break the thebans. We take the theory hit the enemy at its hardest point break it and the rest will fold. We must accept that the Thebans was the ace card in the Greek army.

Logic tells me that at that point was the decisive point of the action and Alexanders purpose in the battle was indeed to crush them.For me it would have been a much closer call Macedonian Phalanx alone on Theban Alied Hoplites. I dont think Alexander charged head on at the Thebans but in some tactical manouver took them out.

We cant prove one way or another but its my theory. Or maybe Alexander was at the tuck wagon cooking breakfast for the boys. For what we really know he might as well have been.

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

Sarissaed souvlaki

Post by Paralus »

kennyxx wrote: We take the quotes that the Sacred Band were destroyed to the last man. Now that can be taken 2 ways the First that they as the Spartans did fought to the last man. Or alternatively they were taken from the back to stop them retreating...

I take the theory hit the enemy at its hardest point break it and the rest will fold. We must accept that the Thebans was the ace card in the Greek army...

...Logic tells me that at that point was the decisive point of the action and Alexanders purpose in the battle was indeed to crush them. For me it would have been a much closer call Macedonian Phalanx alone on Theban Allied Hoplites.
Last first. I think the decisive point in the engagement was the right and GÇô if what we have is correct GÇô Philip's tactics to pull the Allied left (the Athenian wing) out and to their left from the defensive position they occupied. He succeeded brilliantly and his halt and "charge" on that side of the field took the Athenians completely by surprise as they were rather gruesomely "pinned" upon a hedge of sarissae. This discombobulated the line.

The Thebans were the most experienced of the Greek hoplites. They did not follow the rash Athenian push "on to Macedon" and so eventually suffered a thinning of their line which was exploited by the Macedonian phalanx and its allies. In the end the Sacred Band appears to have done a Leonidas and died where it stood. Most likely, as Hammond says, on Macedonian sarissa points.
kennyxx wrote: Or maybe Alexander was at the tuck wagon cooking breakfast for the boys. For what we really know he might as well have been.
Ha, ha, haaa! Alexander's souvlaki served on sarissa with a good red from Thasos. Some breaky!
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
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Or maybe Alexander was at the tuck wagon cooking breakfast for the boys. For what we really know he might as well have been.
Errr... that contradicts the "logic" argument that you mentioned before.In the same manner, people couldnt see a planet that was newly discovered in the X star system.Does that mean that the planet did not exist until someone spotted it?If you go by logic, then no,the planet existed anyways.And Alexander couldnt have been in the wagon preparing souvlakia and wine.

On the other had, logic doesnt necessarily say that Alexander would be on horse.But since his father made groundbraking changes and introduced new things in military equipment and tactics, what applied to the rest of the Greeks would not apply to the Macedonians also.And that's why Philip was able to conquer the entire Greece.So, Pelopidas and Epameinondas may have freaked out with the extensive use of cavalry by Philip and Alexander, but that was their undoing eventually.As was the Spartans' persistence in wearing heavy armor, until they were defeated by soldiers that wore lighter armors.This logic does not rule out Alexander being on horse or leading the cavalry.
Post Reply