Alexander & the kopis

[karen]

...it could mean that the artists weren’t all that concerned about portraying a sword that Achilles might also have carried, as opposed to a Macedonian kopis.

To muse back at you -- it could just as easily mean Alexander carried a straight sword like Achilles, and wore armour like Achilles -- or Achilles' actual armour -- in emulation of Achilles, and the painter and mosaicists were rendering it faithfully.

I can't buy that the cavalry favoured the kopis when I keep finding contemporary images of Alexander and other horsemen carrying straight swords as they ride. Here's one from the Alexander sarcophagus -- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... alian.jpg.. Sure he's Thessalian, but if you've got Alexander the Great: Man of Spirit, Man of Action by Pierre Briant, p. 37 has one who's definitely Mak.

Where does the cavalry- kopis theory come from anyway?

I was wondering what in heck Alexander was doing holding the blade of a sword -- if there was anyone who knew "which end of a sword to pick up" it was him -- but looking at the linked site, I think the sword is in its scabbard. It must be a beautiful piece, congrats on getting it.

Warmly,
Karen

[jasonxx]

Amyntoros

the 2 pictures.particullally the stautue. Im not at all convinced that it could even be Alexander at all. The statue looks more remenisent of the greek godesses. This statue the only very slight thing that couldin my opinion link to alexander is the helmet.

I cant recall any of the close lisipus etc having done statues of Alexander in what looks like a dress and probably wouldnt think Alexander would commision such a Statue. the Classic greek statues are mostly concerned with the naked format of the male torso.

i think a lot of these later statues are as you say creative licence. The only statues thatcan basically be taken anything serious are the Pysippus and some of the contemporary sculptures. That statue in my oinion looks like a woman.

with a lot of later art even its representitive of the times. A picture I dont particullaly like is Michael Angeloes. Now in thatAlexander loks like a French Aristocrat. A girl even/

[amyntoros]

the 2 pictures.particullally the stautue. Im not at all convinced that it could even be Alexander at all. The statue looks more remenisent of the greek godesses. This statue the only very slight thing that couldin my opinion link to alexander is the helmet.

I’m sorry Kenny – I’ve unintentionally confused you. The image of the statue that I posted on Pothos IS a woman and a goddess – Athena, no less. I only put it up to show the technique of the artist, Francois Perrier, who also did the etching of Alexander as Achilles. You can find the Alexander print here - you have to scroll down quite a way - but the quality of the image is poor.

To muse back at you -- it could just as easily mean Alexander carried a straight sword like Achilles, and wore armour like Achilles -- or Achilles' actual armour -- in emulation of Achilles, and the painter and mosaicists were rendering it faithfully.

Oh, absolutely. Can’t disagree there. Now, I looked through my files this morning and (unless I’ve missed something) they never actually say that the armour taken by Alexander at Troy belonged to Achilles, only that it remained from the Trojan war. Okay, “supposedly” remained from the war.

Arrian I.11.7 They also say that he was the first to disembark on Asian soil armed cap-a-pie, that he set up altars both where he started from Europe and where he landed in Asia to Zeus of Safe Landings, Athena, and Heracles, and that he then went up to Troy, and sacrificed to the Trojan Athena, dedicated his full armour in the temple, and took down in its place some of the dedicated arms yet remaining from the Trojan war, which, it is said, [8] the hypaspists henceforth used to carry before him into battle.

Diodorus XVII.18.1 Alexander sacrifices to Athena, deposits his armour in temple, takes armour from temple offerings and uses it in his first battle.
[1] Alexander welcomed the prediction of the seer and made a splendid sacrifice to Athena, dedicating his own armour to the goddess. Then, taking the finest of the panoplies deposited in the temple, he put it on and used it in his first battle. And this he did in fact decide through his own personal fighting ability and won a resounding victory. But this did not take place till a few days later.

Arrian 6.9.3 Thinking that the Macedonians who were bringing the ladders were laggard, Alexander seized a ladder from one of the bearers, set it up himself against the wall, huddled under his shield and mounted up; next went Peucestas, carrying the sacred shield, which Alexander had taken from the temple of Athena of Ilium and always kept by him, and which was carried before him in battle, then Leonnatus, the bodyguard, went up by the same ladder, and by another ladder Abreas, one of the soldiers with double pay.

It may well be, however, that the cuirass looked much like the one worn by Achilles in the vase painting. There are so many records of Alexander’s armour being displayed by various Successors that one must assume that Alexander had several duplicates. One thing is for sure, the regular army must have been familiar with Alexander’s armour and able to recognize it immediately, therefore Alexander would have had to have the cuirass from Troy duplicated if this was what he wore regularly. (The sources above only mention the first battle.) And if the mosaic is a copy of a painting made while many of Alexander’s men were still alive, then it’s likely that the armor is a true representation. Also, the mosaic depiction does bear a strong resemblance to the armor found in one of the royal tombs.

Still, I’m partial to the Achillean parallel and if the armour in the mosaic is an accurate portrayal then it suggests that Alexander promoted the comparison. I remember an argument here some years ago as to whether Alexander’s emulation of Achilles was created by his biographers or whether it really existed. Someone noted that there was no archaeological evidence of Alexander ever having been portrayed as Achilles and I mentioned Perrier’s etching which depicts a now lost ancient statue. At the time I hadn’t noted the resemblance on the mosaic.

However, if it IS an accurate portrayal, then there's still the question of the sword!

Where does the cavalry- kopis theory come from anyway?

I think it likely comes from archaeological evidence given that the kopis I described in a previous post came from the grave at Aigai of a cavalryman who fought at the time of both Philip and Alexander. Perhaps similar swords have been found in the graves of other cavalrymen? I would expect that information on other findings has been published somewhere but I don’t know if much of it is online. Beth Carney’s site is the best online site that I know of, but even there she can only focus on a small portion of the recovered remains from Macedonian tombs. And archaeologists continue to excavate – a quantity of Macedonian armour was recovered quite recently in a ditch in Bulgaria. Unfortunately, the quality of information we receive on Bulgarian excavations is poor.

It seems to me that because many examples of the kopis have been found (refering back to the webpage that you originally posted) they must have been used frequently. I’m reminded of a conversation with a friend who works for a doctor. The doctor had been watching the series, Rome, and declared that a straight sword made out of iron and wielded by a gladiator could not cut through bone the way it was portrayed in the scene. I countered with the tale of Cleitus, but it did get me wondering. I know little about hand to hand combat and/or sword fighting, but isn’t the point of the sword the most effective part of the weapon? Someone here should know. And would a kopis, wielded as if an axe be a more effective weapon if one were on a horse and literally “hacking and slashing” from above?

A most interesting thread. . .

Best regards,

[karen]

It is a most interesting thread...

I know that Nick Sekunda, who studies such things, states (and illustrates) that the Makedonian cavalry used straight swords... he must be going on what he considers good evidence.

It seems to me that because many examples of the kopis have been found (refering back to the webpage that you originally posted) they must have been used frequently.

Definitely. My own theory is that the type of a sword used by a warrior was determined by his personal preference, not whether he was on horseback or not. After all, each warrior generally had only one sword, and so he should be comfortable with it both on horseback and on foot, even if he always fought in the cavalry during pitched battles... because there were those special occasions like duels (during banquets or elsewhere), surprise attacks in which he didn't have enough time to get his horse, or even hunting, as the mosaics show.

I know little about hand to hand combat and/or sword fighting, but isn’t the point of the sword the most effective part of the weapon? Someone here should know.

Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of what I know, such as it is, from a year of fencing lessons, seven years of karate (we did some weapons training), five more years of teaching women's self-defense, my own experimentations, and my conversations with re-enactors. It's like this: the most effective part of a weapon is whatever part you can do damage to the other guy with. E.g.: two swordsmen are fighting each other and they get into a grapple. And all one can do with his sword is whack the other on the nose with the pommel -- then when he's weakened by pain, wrestle free and stab him in the throat. Which part of the sword was most effective?

I may sound like I'm being silly here, but by the same principle, i.e. that you can't separate the effectiveness of a sword (or any part of it) from the skill and intent of its wielder, said intent can be designed right into the sword. So you get swords designed more for cutting, like the kopis with its curved blade and weight towards the point, and swords designed more for stabbing, like the Roman gladius with its straight blade and more balanced weight. (And of course a sword should both cut and stab, so there are generally features built in allowing for that versatility... involving some sort of trade-off.) So you could say the edge of a kopis is more effective than the point, and the point of a gladius more effective than the edge.

But when you're talking effectiveness you still can't separate the sword from the wielder. In the hands of a guy who's better at a cutting style, the edge of either a gladius or a kopis will be more effective than the point -- whereas it's the reverse in the hands of a guy who's better at a stabbing style. And fighting styles can vary tremendously while being effective, as anyone who knows anything about Eastern martials arts knows. (A kung fu master and a karate master went at it, and a student asked, "Who will win?" Another master answered: "Whoever doesn't make the first mistake." It would be the same for a kopis expert with a kopis fighting a gladius expert with a gladius.)

And would a kopis, wielded as if an axe be a more effective weapon if one were on a horse and literally “hacking and slashing” from above?

Well, anything that has its weight towards its end is going to be more effective used downwards than on level ground, or than something with not so much weight towards the tip, because gravity will help. But cavalry fighting is only from above when against infantry... not against other cavalry. So in that cavalry press at the Granikos, for instance, it wouldn't have made a difference. (Wasn't it Arrian who wrote it was like an infantry-battle?) In fact men with swords which could be moved faster because they were balanced closer to the hand might have been at an advantage. There's always a trade-off -- gain force, lose maneuverability, and vice-versa.

In fact here's a theory I'll throw at you: in his fighting, Alexander, being a small man, had the usual disadvantage of smallness -- not a lot of brute strength -- but also the usual advantage: speed of movement. (It's obvious how he used speed of movement strategically and tactically -- in fact to my mind his style of strategy and tactics has all the features of how a small man can defeat a bigger one in a fight, including not being afraid of his size -- so is it not likely that it was an extension of his personal combat style?) So, having a speed advantage over most opponents, he optimized it by using the straight sword rather than the kopis, and that's why we don't see any depictions of him with one. (Plus, of course, there's the Achilles factor.)

Incidentally, I disagree with this: "The curved beak of the bird also protected the warrior’s hand from behind." I mean, I'm sure it did, but that wasn't its main purpose. In my opinion its main purpose was to allow the warrior to relax his hand at exactly the right moment for an optimally powerful cut, without letting the sword fly out of it. This is something I know also from using an axe -- back when I was younger and more buff I used to split all the wood we heated our house with by hand, and being a martial artist also I sort of studied how to do it, so as to get it done faster. Towards the end of the blow, it's the weight of the blade itself, plus its momentum, not your muscle, that's giving it its speed and force, and so to get the most powerful blow you relax your hands just before it hits -- not letting go completely, of course, but not tense at all. (There's more to this, there's a kind of letting go you have to do right from the start, but it's hard to explain.) If your hands are tense at that point they'll actually slow the blade down and weaken the blow.

But say it's a kopis , and in just one hand. If you relax the hand too much, the sword will fly right out of it... but not if there's this convenient bird-beak hooked around the fingers. Its presence -- and in fact the whole shape of the grip, which seems a couple of millennia ahead of its time ergonomically -- allowed the warrior to relax his hand a lot just before impact, making for a more powerful cut.

When thrusting or stabbing, however, the hand has to be tense all the way in, so as to guide the point to exactly where its aimed, as well as provide the force, since it's all muscle, no gravity and not much momentum, that powers a thrust... so there was no need to add a feature enabling the hand to relax.

At least these are my various 02's.

Warmly,
Karen

[amyntoros]

Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of what I know, such as it is, from a year of fencing lessons, seven years of karate (we did some weapons training), five more years of teaching women's self-defense, my own experimentations, and my conversations with re-enactors.

Wow! I won’t say anything on the effectiveness of sword-fighting styles – can’t really, as I know nothing about the subject – so I’ll just comment on the following:

I know that Nick Sekunda, who studies such things, states (and illustrates) that the Makedonian cavalry used straight swords... he must be going on what he considers good evidence.

I admire Sekunda’s books and research, but as was said in one of the military forums, I wouldn’t take his work as gospel. For instance, we had a discussion in a previous thread about his comment that "Most modern authorities believe that the infantry under Alexander continued to use the peltai they had used during the first years of Philip’s reign, but this view runs against the archaeological evidence, and against some evidence contained in the texts." (Alexander the Great: His Armies and Campaigns 334-323 BC Page 39.) Sekunda goes on to reference the battle in the Balkan campaigns where Alexander ordered his men to cover themselves with their shields and the carts pushed down the hill at the army simply rolled over them (Arrian 1.1.9) – something that wouldn’t have been possible if they were armed with the smaller shields. However, as we discussed in the thread, the larger hoplite shields could not have been used by the phalanx during the major battles in Asia because the sarissa is a two-handed weapon, as opposed to the shorter hoplite “thrusting” spear. It would be impossible to hold a hoplite shield and effectively wield a sarissa at the same time. So it looks like different weapons were brought into use at different times, according to the circumstances.

My own theory is that the type of a sword used by a warrior was determined by his personal preference, not whether he was on horseback or not. After all, each warrior generally had only one sword, and so he should be comfortable with it both on horseback and on foot, even if he always fought in the cavalry during pitched battles... because there were those special occasions like duels (during banquets or elsewhere), surprise attacks in which he didn't have enough time to get his horse, or even hunting, as the mosaics show.

But why assume they only had one sword? Alexander, with his vast income, could afford to have any kind of weapon available to hand, but there’s some evidence that rest of the army also had a choice. The two wall decorations in the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles (mid Hellenistic Macedonian infantrymen) show four different swords painted on the walls; three different straight swords and one kopis, implying that the men had a choice. You can find the image of one wall here. Unfortunately I can’t find an picture of the other wall online, so unless some other member knows of one you’ll just have to take my word for it that two other different swords are pictured.

Personally, I believe it would be overconfident to claim that Alexander never used a kopis based only on surviving imagery and the lack of any reference in historical texts. That’s what Sekunda did with the shields.

Best regards,

[karen]

I mentioned Sekunda not for gospel reasons but in relation to my question of where the cavalry-kopis theory came from. Obviously he’s not one supporting it. Who is, and on what basis? For instance, where did you read it, Amyntoros?

In regard to shields, I have always thought that different types of infantry units would have used different shields – the sarissa-bearers a small one, the Hypaspists a large one (as their name suggests), the light infantry small or none at all – suited to their style of fighting and role in battle. Don’t we know that from archaeology?

As I understand it, in the traditional way of hoplite fighting, the first rank formed a shield-wall, whereas the first five ranks of sarissa-bearers formed a hedge of points – two entirely different modes.

The incident of the wagons at Haimos raises the question… what happened to the sarissa-bearers when the wagons were rolled down towards them?

Tell the truth, I suspect that that whole story is exaggerated if not entirely fictional… I can think of all kinds of reasons why the tortoise formation – plenty effective against arrows, rocks or other missiles – wouldn’t work against rock-laden wagons. I seem to vaguely recall someone once wrote an article to that effect – anyone know?

I would think Alexander and the aristocratic class could have had multiple swords, but the average joe could surely not afford more than one good one. (Judging by the size and quality of their tomb, I think Lyson & Kallikles must have been well above average in wealth.) If your budget was limited, in terms of personal/financial tactics, it would be better to buy the one best sword you could afford than, say, two of what you could get at half that price. It’s not as if you'd use two at a time.

As an aside, you know what I find most fascinating about the Lyson & Kallikles tomb? The perspective used in the painting. They weren’t very good at it, but there it is… something I thought had not been invented until the Renaissance.

Personally, I believe it would be overconfident to claim that Alexander never used a kopis based only on surviving imagery and the lack of any reference in historical texts. That’s what Sekunda did with the shields.

Well, I think “never say never” is a truism in general, especially when it comes to ancient times, for which so much evidence is lost. I doubt Alexander never at least tried a kopis; he was an innovative type, and innovative people try things. The uniformity of images in showing him with a straight sword, however, suggests to me that he liked the straight sword better.

Question to those out there who read ancient Greek: what word does Arrian use, that is translated into “sword” when referring to Alexander?

Never mind…. I just phoned a dear friend. We looked through three different translations of Arrian, and found:

- xiphos is consistently translated as “sword”
- kopis is consistently translated as “scimitar”
- all references to Alexander using a sword use xiphos
- however there are no incidences of the word "sword" while he's on horseback
- xiphos seems to be the generic word for sword, as when Alexander in his guilt-trip speech at Opis refers to having suffered sword-wounds.

Occurrences of the word “sword” are surprisingly few in a book about a pre-firearms military campaign – we only hear of Alexander using his during two incidents: cutting the Gordian knot, and fighting on and inside the wall at Mallia. That’s all.

My friend also searched through what she calls her "big fat Greek dictionary" and found the definition of xiphos refers to it being straight and two-edged.

Just as a point of interest, kopis is derived from the Greek verb "to cut" -- so you could almost more literally translate it as "cutter."

All keen to dig through Diodoros for sword references, I find that Perseus is still not quite right…. <sigh>

Anyone know where else online, if anywhere, I can find Plutarch in Greek?

Warmly,
Karen

[amyntoros]

I mentioned Sekunda not for gospel reasons but in relation to my question of where the cavalry-kopis theory came from. Obviously he’s not one supporting it. Who is, and on what basis? For instance, where did you read it, Amyntoros?

Hmm, afraid I haven't been saving any information except for that which I've posted, although I suspect the basis is archaeological considering that a kopis was found in the tomb of the Macedonian cavalryman from Aigai.

In regard to shields, I have always thought that different types of infantry units would have used different shields – the sarissa-bearers a small one, the Hypaspists a large one (as their name suggests), the light infantry small or none at all – suited to their style of fighting and role in battle. Don’t we know that from archaeology?

The shields and/or weapons used would also have been dependent on the type of warfare though. Minor M. Markle III in Macedonian Arms and Tactics under Alexander the Great; Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times (Studies in the History of Art) explains:

The accounts of the campaigns of Alexander suggest that he and his soldiers were trained in the use of various weapons and that the arms which they deployed depended solely on the occasion. The principal question asked by Alexander when he considered how his troops should be armed was what weapons and armor would be most effective in winning the particular military objective.

He continues with examples from the sources and then follows with archaeological information - it is Markle who published a catalogue of the arms found in individual burials in the Vergina cemetery,

As I understand it, in the traditional way of hoplite fighting, the first rank formed a shield-wall, whereas the first five ranks of sarissa-bearers formed a hedge of points – two entirely different modes.

Interesting concept, but one which brings up the issue of 'honor" and positions in the battle array and front line being afforded according to bravery and achievement, something very important to the Macedonians. We see evidence of this after the trial of Philotas when, as J.E. Lendon; Soldiers and Ghosts (Page 125)explains: "A penal unit of discontented Macedonians that Alexander formed was called the atakton, the 'out-of-the-line' unit, their punishment being to be taken out of their place in the Macedonian array and so to lose the status that place implied. The tradition is that, inflamed by the insult, they fought with exceptional bravery." To me the evidence also suggests that those in the very front of the line were the most brave and experienced (as opposed to the Roman way) and it's hard to imagine them armed chiefly for defensive purposes. Once the two armies were engaged, wouldn't this mean they would be sandwiched between the front lines with only a sword as a weapon? I suspect we could end up with a whole separate debate on this subject.

The incident of the wagons at Haimos raises the question… what happened to the sarissa-bearers when the wagons were rolled down towards them?

They may not have been carrying their sarissae if the nature of the terrain meant that Alexander did not anticipate any battles on open ground, or perhaps if he was trying to make speed through the mountains. He would have been smart enough to know if sarissae would be needed or not during that march. I know that the histories tell how the Macedonians carried their own weapons, but I can’t see Alexander sticking to "tradition" if it was detrimental to the situation. I’ll quote Markle again:

I would also maintain that sarissae would not have been carried by the foot companions on expeditions involving fast and long marches during which skirmishes and battles might occur in unexpected places, often on rugged terrain. Arrian (2.5.6) reports that Alexander took three brigades of the Macedonian infantry, all the archers, and the Agrianes and marched against the Cilicians who were occupying the mountains. If these three brigades of foot soldiers had been armed with sarissae, they might have been able to fight with advantage in the valleys between mountains. On the other hand, if they had carried swords, spears, and javelins, they would have been serviceable throughout the mission. Alexander would not have wanted so many infantry merely to sit down and wait while the Agrianes and archers fought on the slopes. Moreover, armed with sarissae they would have had difficulty in defending themselves if attacked on rugged ground.

Yes, Markle is conjecturing here, but I think he is correct based on what we know about Alexander's brilliance in strategy and tactics - he certainly didn't stick only to the traditional manner of hoplite warfare. Pierre Vidal-Naquet in The Black Hunter (Page 97) describes how the heavily-armored Athenian hoplites were "well-suited to only one kind of combat: in the open, phalanx against phalanx, with the site having been agreed on by both sides." On the other hand, as he explains, they were poorly suited for pursuit of the enemy; siege warfare, and mountain warfare. An example of the latter is the hoplites under Demosthenes in Aetolia who were "slaughtered by the mobile, light-armed enemy. (Thuc. 3.96-98 )." There's no evidence of Alexander making that kind of mistake and I agree that he would have had his men armed according to the needs of the anticipated combat.

I would think Alexander and the aristocratic class could have had multiple swords, but the average joe could surely not afford more than one good one. (Judging by the size and quality of their tomb, I think Lyson & Kallikles must have been well above average in wealth.) If your budget was limited, in terms of personal/financial tactics, it would be better to buy the one best sword you could afford than, say, two of what you could get at half that price. It's not as if you'd use two at a time.

Ah, but any cavalryman had to be able to afford at least one horse, along with its /their upkeep, so I think an extra sword would be a comparatively minor expense. The foot soldiers may have had little money to begin with, but they were allowed to loot which would have enabled them to purchase what they needed, plus I believe they could have taken arms captured from the enemy. All those dead Persians must have afforded the Macedonians plenty of opportunity to acquire weapons! If, on the other hand, all captured weapons were surrendered to Alexander he would have been able to equip his forces with what they needed. There was that "armory" in his tent, after all.

Anyone know where else online, if anywhere, I can find Plutarch in Greek?

Try The Little Sailing: Ancient Greek Texts. They have downloadable files (which you can set to "read only") including Plutarch's Alexander.

Phew! This post is long and probably repetitive (sorry), but it's the best I can do for now while I continue to troubleshoot some computer problems.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

I think possibly too much has been made of the name Hypaspist as a bearer of a shield. The implication being that these individuals then must have carried shields different to those of the phalanx infantry.

The Hypaspist corps, arguments over the date of its inception aside, were selected on the basis of their physique, experience and skill. They were the elite of the infantry and selected for on that basis. They provided the “foot guard” for the King when he was on foot. Within this group was an “agema” which confusingly in the sources is referred to as the “Royal Hypaspists” or “Royal Guard”. These individuals are the nobility who, having completed life as a page, did “their time” as the foot equivalent of the cavalry agema. (Heckel, Marshals). If the king was on foot, as Philip ostensibly was at Chaeronea and Alexander was on occasion in Asia) these men became his “shield bearers” (Peucestas in India). Thus we have Alexander taking with him, at various times, “the guards” or the hypaspists or the “royal hypaspists”.

The hang-up is with the word “shield”. Whilst these elite infantrymen will have been equipped differently for the different roles they will have performed – one will hardly have carried a sarisa up the wall of Tyre – when in line of battle they were armed as were the Pezhetairoi. The difference was in their physical stature combined their unexcelled performance in battle. The hypaspists were the “best of the best”.

Hence, after India, we have Alexander’s (and Philip’s) hypaspists corps referring to themselves as a corporate unit: the Argyraspides or Silver Shields. Antigonos Monophthalmos and his infantry would find out over 317/6 just what these frightening old buggers were capable of.

The use of the term Hypaspist too needs consideration. As Bosworth points out, Diodorus uses the technical term once (or twice – can’t remember and I’m at the office). The rest are what he describes as non-technical. By this he means – as a the assault on the “Camels’ Fort” in 321 – that the “shield bearers” followed the “ladder-bearers” to scale the fortifications under a shield – as one would! He argues these are not Alexander’s hypaspists (the Argyraspides) but troops scaling the fortifications under a shield.

[karen]

The accounts of the campaigns of Alexander suggest that he and his soldiers were trained in the use of various weapons and that the arms which they deployed depended solely on the occasion. The principal question asked by Alexander when he considered how his troops should be armed was what weapons and armor would be most effective in winning the particular military objective.

Yes but there were clearly specialists in different skills -- wielding a sarissa and archery, for instance, are completely different and the way to become most skilled at one or the other would be to concentrate on it for a significant amount of one's training and career. So we have units designated by what arms they bear: the phalanx with its sarissas, the archers, the light-armed units, the hypaspists, etc.

I'm sure what happened was a happy medium between total specialization, i.e. every man had only one weapons skill -- and total generalization i.e. every man trained in all weapons equally. So each man had some versatility -- enough to allow Alexander to change their roles for tactical reasons, as you're saying -- but not total versatility. (And sometimes they all wielded shovels and wheelbarrows... e.g. Tyre.) I'm speculating here but I'm going to posit that every man trained in how to use a sword, shield and 7-8 foot spear, because these were the standard weapons. Only some (and I think only the bigger) men would train to wield the sarissa, only some (those whose families could afford horses) would learn cavalry fighting, and so on.

Interesting concept, but one which brings up the issue of 'honor" and positions in the battle array and front line being afforded according to bravery and achievement, something very important to the Macedonians. We see evidence of this after the trial of Philotas when, as J.E. Lendon; Soldiers and Ghosts (Page 125)explains: "A penal unit of discontented Macedonians that Alexander formed was called the atakton, the 'out-of-the-line' unit, their punishment being to be taken out of their place in the Macedonian array and so to lose the status that place implied. The tradition is that, inflamed by the insult, they fought with exceptional bravery." To me the evidence also suggests that those in the very front of the line were the most brave and experienced (as opposed to the Roman way) and it's hard to imagine them armed chiefly for defensive purposes. Once the two armies were engaged, wouldn't this mean they would be sandwiched between the front lines with only a sword as a weapon? I suspect we could end up with a whole separate debate on this subject.

Probably, and it would be an interesting one, though possibly not to be settled without taking up arms... ahhh, I mean, actually trying it out with a huge bunch of people. I'm thinking of what Robin Lane Fox said about Gaugamela and how the phalanx got out of the way of the chariots, after he participated in the re-enactment for the movie: "That must be how they did it!"

Anyway, both forms of phalanx were armed both for offense and defense, simultaneously. The big difference would be that the sarissa phalanx used its sarissas for defense as well as offence -- just by holding off enemies on those five rows of points -- whereas the classical hoplites used spear for offense and shield for defense. And, to be fair, a shield can be used offensively, in a limited way, as well... especially if the objective is to take ground by forcing the enemy line back.

When I think about this idea of sandwiching you're talking about, that would be why the best warriors would be in the front line -- they were the best able to carve their way into the enemy unit, breaking it up, rather than end up as sardines, unable to move

I would also maintain that sarissae would not have been carried by the foot companions on expeditions involving fast and long marches during which skirmishes and battles might occur in unexpected places, often on rugged terrain. Arrian (2.5.6) reports that Alexander took three brigades of the Macedonian infantry, all the archers, and the Agrianes and marched against the Cilicians who were occupying the mountains. If these three brigades of foot soldiers had been armed with sarissae, they might have been able to fight with advantage in the valleys between mountains. On the other hand, if they had carried swords, spears, and javelins, they would have been serviceable throughout the mission. Alexander would not have wanted so many infantry merely to sit down and wait while the Agrianes and archers fought on the slopes. Moreover, armed with sarissae they would have had difficulty in defending themselves if attacked on rugged ground.

He makes a lot of sense here... perchance does he think as I do, that everyone got the training in sword, spear and shield, but then specialized as preferred, or suitable for their build or wealth?

Ah, but any cavalryman had to be able to afford at least one horse, along with its /their upkeep, so I think an extra sword would be a comparatively minor expense. The foot soldiers may have had little money to begin with, but they were allowed to loot which would have enabled them to purchase what they needed, plus I believe they could have taken arms captured from the enemy. All those dead Persians must have afforded the Macedonians plenty of opportunity to acquire weapons! If, on the other hand, all captured weapons were surrendered to Alexander he would have been able to equip his forces with what they needed. There was that "armory" in his tent, after all.

I'd never argue that Alexander couldn't have afforded as many swords as he pleased... but I think you're playing down the importance of preference. I'm basing this on what I know of sword ownership throughout history... generally warriors have settled on a favourite one. Enough that they even sometimes got names, most famous of which would be Arthur's Excalibur. A warrior could form a kind of a bond with a sword... as the samurai when they talk about the sword being their soul. You don't hear that about spears, relatively disposable as they were. Yes, there is something not quite rational here, but warriors are humans. What if Makedonian soldiers weren't interested in picking up weapons from the Persian dead because they were different from what they were used to? (There would have been a tradition of having a single sword dating from a less prosperous time, not all that far back in Makedonian history.)

I'd also still argue that when a sword breaking could mean the difference between life and death, a warrior was better off spending his drachmai on one sword of max quality he could afford rather than two swords of half-max quality. The really rich, of course, could afford multiple swords of the best quality.

Found it...! Thanks to someone on the Roman Army Talk thread referenced in the "Hey Philip fans" thread here. That accounting of what Alexander donned before Gaugamela... it's in Plutarch.

When he had said this, he put on his helmet, having the rest of his arms on before he came out of his tent, which were a coat of the Sicilian make, girt close about him, and over that a breast-piece of thickly quilted linen, which was taken among other booty at the battle of Issus. The helmet, which was made by Theophilus, though of iron, was so well wrought and polished that it was as bright as the most refined silver. To this was fitted a gorget of the same metal, set with precious stones. His sword, which was the weapon he most used in fight, was given him by the King of the Citieans, and was of an admirable temper and lightness. The belt which he also wore in all engagements was of much richer workmanship than the rest of his armour. It was a work of the ancient Helicon, and had been presented to him by the Rhodians, as a mark of their respect to him.

.

Let's see if my Greek is good enough to find the line about the sword in Greek... thanks for that website, it's terrific -- my friend who's studying Greek likes it too -- and that's where I got this.

τὸ δὲ κράνος ἦν μὲν σιδηροῦν, ἔστιλβε δ’ ὥσπερ ἄργυρος καθαρός, ἔργον Θεοφίλου· συνήρμοστο δ’ αὐτῷ περιτραχήλιον ὁμοίως σιδηροῦν, λιθοκόλλητον· ***μάχαιραν*** δὲ θαυμαστὴν βαφῇ καὶ κουφότητι, δωρησαμένου τοῦ Κιτιέων βασιλέως, {ἣν} εἶχεν, ἠσκημένος τὰ πολλὰ χρῆσθαι μαχαίρᾳ παρὰ τὰς μάχας.

It took some doing because my Greek isn't great, but it's the word between the asterisks -- in English variously spelled as machaira, makhaira, machaera.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhaira

I'll quote in full because it answers even more questions than I thought it would.

Makhaira (μάχαιρα, also transliterated machaira or machaera; an Ancient Greek word, <PIE *magh-, "to fight") is a term used by modern scholars to describe a type of ancient bladed weapon, generally a large knife with a slight backwards curve. In period texts, μάχαιρα has a variety of meanings, and can refer to virtually any knife or sword, even a surgeon's scalpel, but in a martial context it frequently does seem to refer to a type of one-edged, curved sword.[1] Modern scholars distinguish the makhaira from the kopis (an ancient term of similar meaning) based on the direction of the blade curvature.[2]

These weapons were of various sizes and shapes, being regional, and not exclusively Greek. Greek art shows the Lacedaemonian and Persian armies employing curved weapons, but Persian records show that their primary infantry sword was straight, similar to the Greek xiphos (cf. acinaces).

While Xenophon states that xiphos was more conventional among Greek armies of his time, he recommended the makhaira for cavalry, "μάχαιράν μεν μάλλον ἡ ξίφος ἐπαίνουμεν" (Xenophon, 12:11). His reasoning concurs with the general practice of arming cavalry with curved swords through the ages. Greek art along with Xenophon's further commentary suggests that the sword he intended for the cavalry was wider than the more modern sabre; more akin to the falchion.

The Koine of the New Testament uses the word makhaira to refer to a sword generically, not making any particular distinction between native blades and the gladius of the Roman soldier. This ambiguity appears to have contributed to the apocryphal malchus, a supposedly short curved sword used by Peter to cut off the ear of a slave named Malchus during the arrest of Jesus. While such a weapon clearly is a makhaira by ancient definition, the imprecise nature of the word as used in the New Testament cannot provide any conclusive answer.

Makhaira entered classical Latin as machaera, "a sword". In modern Greek, μαχαιρι means "knife."

So here Alexander's carrying a curved sword but not a kopis... whereas Arrian I believe had him carrying a xiphos at every mention... which would suggest he did indeed use two swords... unless Plutarch was using the word generically. (Or -- usual caution -- one or both authors were wrong.)

And we know where the idea of ancient Greek cavalry carrying a curved blade -- machaira if not kopis -- comes from: Xenophon's recommending it. Alexander would have read him, surely... perhaps he was following his advice. This was Gaugamela, for him a cavalry engagement.

But that doesn't mean everyone did... if a cavalryman preferred a straight sword, and had only one, that'd probably be what he used, which would explain the artwork showing straight-bladed cavalrymen.

So much uncertainty. But it's all interesting...

Hope you've straightened out your computer troubles (as I seem finally to have straightened out mine)!

Warmly,
Karen

[Callisto]

Some quotes from Diodorus Siculus about Alexander's armour and weapons.

[3] As the force of this attack seemed dangerous, Alexander turned his horse toward the satrap and rode at him.2
To the Persian, it seemed as if this opportunity for a single combat was god-given. He hoped that by his individual gallantry Asia might be relieved of its terrible menace, the renowned daring of Alexander arrested by his own hands, and the glory of the Persians saved from disgrace. He hurled his javelin first at Alexander with so mighty an impulse and so powerful a cast that he pierced Alexander's shield and right epomis and drove through the breastplate [4] The king shook off the weapon as it dangled by his arm, then applying spurs to his horse and employing the favouring momentum of his charge drove his lance squarely into the satrap's chest. [5] At this, adjacent ranks in both armies cried out at the superlative display of prowess. The point, however, snapped off against the breastplate and the broken shaft recoiled, and the Persian drew his sword and drove at Alexander; but the king recovered his grip upon his lance in time to thrust at the man's face and drive the blow home

.

Diodorus 17.20.3 – 6

[2] But exposed as he was to many and fierce attacks he nevertheless was not overborne by the numbers of the foe. Though he took two blows on the breastplate, one on the helmet, and three on the shield2 which he had brought from the temple of Athena, he still did not give in, but borne up by an exaltation of spirit surmounted every danger

Diodorus 17.21.2

[2] Now he performed a feat of daring which was hardly believable even to those who saw it.1 He flung a bridge across from the wooden tower to the city walls and crossing by it alone gained a footing on the wall, neither concerned for the envy of Fortune nor fearing the menace of the Tyrians. Having as witness of his prowess the great army which had defeated the Persians, he ordered the Macedonians to follow him, and leading the way he slew some of those who came within reach with his spear, and others by a blow of his sabre*. He knocked down still others with the rim of his shield, and put an end to the high confidence of the enemy.

*machairan (ancient Greek text)

Diodorus 17.46.2

[Paralus]

Alexander’s forces – as well as Philip’s – will have been trained in all the weaponry they will have used. All the infantry will have been trained in the sarisa. They too will have been trained with the spear and the sword.

The units were not exactly designated by the arms they bore. The phalanx for instance was not termed the “sarisa phalanx”. Obviously “archers” and “cavalry” are the eponymous names of those units. The hypaspists, though, are another thing.

Certainly by Philip’s last years this group had been differentiated from the Macedonian infantry. It is posited that the original pezhetairoi were the king’s foot guard, with whom he fought on foot much as he does with the Companion Cavalry on horseback. When this term came to apply to the full body of Macedonian heavy infantry the foot guard became the Hypaspists. Within this was the smaller nucleus of the Royal Hypaspists (as with the ile basilike or agema of the Companion Cavalry).

The name, of course, means “shield bearer” and because of this much ink has been utilised arguing the nature and size of these shields. Concomitant with that is the reasoning that were the shields “borne” by these bearers bigger than the pezhetairoi then they must have been hoplite shields. Therefore these units must have utilised the panoply of armour similar to the hoplite. I’d love to see hoplites scale mountain passes and the walls of Tyre. Too, I’d love to see them chase – on foot – Alexander as he races after Darius.

An easier solution is available: these were the king’s “shield-bearers” when he was on foot in the same way as each man in the phalanx is responsible for bearing his shield as part of the all. In this case, they were the king’s shield wall. The king’s protection when on foot. Peucestas, a royal hypaspist, does exactly this at the Malli town when he so demonstrably bears a shield for the fallen king.

What is clear is that these troops were the best of the best. They were selected for on the basis of skill at arms and their physique. They will have been proficient in many weapons – the sarisa (as the Silver Shileds so amply demonstrate) being prime amongst them. Either way, I think way too much importance has been attached the shield aspect of things. It was a name. It’s a bit like someone in 2.300 years declaring that the the US “Airborne” only ever fought from aeroplanes because of the word. It could then be argued that archaelogical finds of film of helicopters dropping and picking up infantry in Vietnam were landing and retieving the elite "Airborne Infantry"

Interesting you quote from Markle. Markle argues for the fact that the sarisa was introduced after Chaeronea and likely by Alexander. Markle’s view is that Diodorus only claims that Philip formed the phalanx of Macedonians. In other words, he formed up the Macedonian infantry phalanx style. I’d disagree: I doubt that anyone reading Diodorus (or any other ancient writer discussing it) in ancient times would fail to understand just what it is that Diodorus is referring to when he writes "Macedonian phalanx". Were Philip to have simply armed the Macedonians in the Greek hoplite panoply it would simply have sufficed to say that he (Philip) was the first to have the Macedonians adopt the hoplite phalanx. Instead Diodorus clearly states he “devised the both the close array of the phalanx and its equipment…and was the first to organise the Macedonian phalanx”. (XVI.3.2) Self-evidently, one does not need to “devise” that which already exists. I would therefore think that what he devised was somewhat different to the over two-century old hoplite phalanx.