pothos.org

Hi FolksUpon reading Alexanders chan of command and the high ranking officers,its fare to say that we have a case of commisioned officers,but in this case a very succesful case and point.As I am british I have come accostomed to the way high class people over here,have gained high rank within our forces,even the most uselees people in command of what have always been good maybe the best armed forces antwhere.In Alexanders case it developed a great chain of command and an officers definate understanding of the tactics and the way there ultimate commander Alexander would expect,as A unit they must be complimented and Im sure that it was a vital point to the way the victories were attained,I feel they were all loyal to him to the end and must be given credit.Maybe one or 2 got out of order,Harpalus and Philotus,all in all as Partha Bose says a great team as an English man Ive read about so many great British forces been wiped out or massacred due to foolhardy,commisione officers who new nothing, I feel it was basically the same with the Roman Cavalry, rich boys who could afford a horse.It must be emphasised that Alexander and Philip had the worlds first fully proffesional and traine cavlry.regardsKenny

Hi Kenny,Good points. It's interesting to look at the cases of Harpalus and Philotas in the context of officers. In the first instance, Harpalus can't really be considered an officer, at least not when one is talking about leading troops... because he didn't do so. Yes, he went bad, but perhaps for fairly understandable reasons.Philotas is also interesting, because there was nothing to suggest that he was anything but a good and dependable cavalry commander. If he did indeed go 'bad' (and the jury's still out on that one) then it wasn't anything to do with his ability to lead his troops. All the bestMarcus

Kenny,I agree, but not every man can handle and ride the horse or even wanted to do so, it takes practice and dedication to master the art of war from the horse.Philotas was a very good cavalry commander because he followed orders and appeared to make the right decisions on the battle field, he just never knew when and how to keep his mouth shut off the battle field. Like you said Marcus he was loyal but if he became corrupt because of the thought of more power, well like you said, "the jury's still out on that one".
I've debated the difference between full time ancient professional armies and mercenaries imbedded into armies a king developed for whatever purpose. For the exception of Sparta, I believe King Philip II should be credited immensely for his development of such a fine tuned and well polished army with innovated, perfected, and mobile weaponry that I would put up against any army before the gun power age. Nicely said!Regards,Andrew

Hi Andrew,Totally agree with you.It's interesting that you say that not everyone could master a horse (even if he wanted to). You know *far* more about horses and riding than I do, so I don't dispute you for a second. However, it did raise a question in my mind. We are often told that the Macedonian aristocrats, who made up the Companions, were all but reared in the saddle - a bit like the steppe warriors, Parthians, etc. Sooooooo, in instances like that I would assume that *not* to be able to handle a horse, and even not wanting to, would be much, much rarer than in, say, even the modern mid-West. Is that a reasonable assumption?All the bestMarcus (who's never had the opportunity to try and master a horse)

The old bowlegged feeling, I remember it well, LOL.But seriously, between Alexanders commissioned officers, high ranking officers including his chain of command, how many of these men were on horseback (remember, no saddle) during battle? I believe the Calvary was not the largest part of the army but a very important part. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians in a unit reminds me of an ancient Athenian senate (a twelve step program). I was thinking of Alexander's army as a whole, from A to Z but it appears Kenny's message is focusing on just the calvary, if so, you make a very good point view and I stand corrected from drifting out to left field.All the bestAndrew

I don't think you drifted out at all, Andrew. When you count the whole army what you were saying makes a lot more sense - after all, the aristocrats might have been bred to the horse and made up the cavalry, but the infantry clearly weren't.It also occurred to me that the infantry were (largely) from Upper Macedonia where, not only were they not generally rich enough to breed and own horses, but the countryside was less conducive to much riding. So where the lowlander aristocrats might have been bred to the saddle, little wonder if the infantry were.I suspect that very few, if any, of the infantry officers rode, in battle at least; and I've always had the impression that the higher ranking officers were from more noble families. But they were still appointed for their capabilities, on the whole. (more junior officers certainly were - remember the games that Alexander held at Susa - I think - where the winners were appointed to commands).All the bestMarcus

Macedonian horsemen bascially follow the same pattern as Greek horsemen - only the rich could afford to house, train and equip horses for war and pleasure (racing). Although I would contend that Macedonians had much better soil and the ability to retain horses at a lower social level than an Athenian would.Like modern cars today, I doubt we would find an aristocratic ancient Macedonian who couldn't ride into battle unless he was disabled. It must also be commented that to feed horses in Alexander's battle train would limit them to only a small part of his army. Additionally, they would have had to compete with the goats for forage (yeah, sheep would have been tasty but goats fend better for themselves - it was called Aegae for nothing.

I believe most of the Macedonians didn't care to fight from horseback, you have more control fighting from your feet than the back of a horse. Crowd control and fighting from horseback are the same comparison as apples & oranges. Don't forget the horse can trip and fall, you could jump from someone's back and tackle anyone off their horse, pull them off, remember, no saddles (stirrups and saddle horns). Disabled people can ride a horse and the use of their arms and hands would allow them to fight holding the mane in front of the withers.

While I agree that it was the rich who could afford to ride cavalry, Philip, as Partha Bose's book "Alexander the Great's Art of strategy" points out had a traineeship where boys from the age of 10 were invited to join the army and trained to ride. Some of it certainly Philip derived from the Spartans' approach to warfare (though they were mainly oriented towards infantry battles) and some of it Alexander further refined when the tail of his troop line got massacred by the buzkashi-playing Afghans. As Bose points out the Afghans were on horseback from the age of 6 or 7 and in five or six years boy and horse were unified to ride as one.