Standards

[Fiona]

I am reading the Osprey Military book about Alexander's army by Nick Sekunda et al, and I was surprised to see him state that references in the sources to the army bearing standards were an anachronism. Is this a commonly-held view, do people agree with it? I'd have thought a standard of some kind would have been used in almost any army from the dawn of time, as the obvious way to see where the rest of your unit had got to.
Fiona

[Phoebus]

To be fair, it's hard to make many definitive statements about Alexander's army.

In some instances, historians even have a hard time coming to a consensus on whether he had his men employ sarissae or not, or whether he deployed his phalanx 8-deep or 16-deep.

With that in mind, I think Sekunda is well within his rights to question whether Alexander had standards. It was Aelian, I believe, who described to us the supernumeraries attached to teach 256-man spheira/syntagma (ouragos, ensign, messenger, trumpeter, servant) and he did so in a work that was aimed toward Alexander's successors.

Personally, and for all its worth, I disagree with Sekunda. I believe that the Greek-speaking armies had all come a long way since the days of two unbroken phalanxes ramming at each other, the Macedonian ones even moreso than their southern neighbors.

Incidentally, visiting this forum while being deployed is rather dangerous to the wallet. Your topic reminded me to check Amazon and see if Cambridge's History or Greek and Roman Warfare (the two volume set) was available... It was... for the price of $440. It's a good thing I have no children... Thanks, Fionna! [/i]

[athenas owl]

Didn't Arrian mention that Hephaistion's "image" continue being carried before his regiment after his death?

Unless I am reading that wrong, it seems to me that there was some king of standard for at least parts of the army.

[Fiona]

To be fair, it's hard to make many definitive statements about Alexander's army.
In some instances, historians even have a hard time coming to a consensus on whether he had his men employ sarissae or not, or whether he deployed his phalanx 8-deep or 16-deep.
With that in mind, I think Sekunda is well within his rights to question whether Alexander had standards. It was Aelian, I believe, who described to us the supernumeraries attached to teach 256-man spheira/syntagma (ouragos, ensign, messenger, trumpeter, servant) and he did so in a work that was aimed toward Alexander's successors.

Thanks, Phoebus - if I've understood this correctly, then this work of Aelian's was designed to teach the army how to use standards for signalling? So maybe standards that were just for identification came earlier.

Personally, and for all its worth, I disagree with Sekunda. I believe that the Greek-speaking armies had all come a long way since the days of two unbroken phalanxes ramming at each other, the Macedonian ones even moreso than their southern neighbors.

One thing I learned from David Lonsdale's book was that military improvements don't come gradually, but in leaps and bounds, so your opinion sounds logical to me. A short period can make a big difference, especially a period like Philip II's reign, and Epaminondas too just a little earlier, wasn't he? It's good to hear your thoughts on this, to put different expert opinions side by side. As you say, there's so much disagreement! It's amazing how much.

Incidentally, visiting this forum while being deployed is rather dangerous to the wallet. Your topic reminded me to check Amazon and see if Cambridge's History or Greek and Roman Warfare (the two volume set) was available... It was... for the price of $440. It's a good thing I have no children... Thanks, Fionna! [/i]

Whoops, sorry to lead you into temptation! That book sounds too difficult for me yet, but just right for you. It sounds as if you need lots of good books where you are - treat yourself, you deserve it!
Fiona

[Fiona]

Didn't Arrian mention that Hephaistion's "image" continue being carried before his regiment after his death?

Unless I am reading that wrong, it seems to me that there was some king of standard for at least parts of the army.

That's right, and it was the thought of that same passage that made me query Sekunda's statement in the first place. But maybe the answer is to be found in the idea that they had standards to denote units before they had a complex system of signalling with standards. (I don't know that at all, I'm just hazarding a guess.)
But supposing they did have at least regimental standards, then that passage from Arrian conjures up some good images, doesn't it? Did they all bear a picture of the commanding officer? Or just some kind of symbol? I wonder what they looked like?
They sound rather formal - perhaps just for ceremonial occasions?
Maybe in battle it was different - it would have been easy enough, for example, to tie a strip of coloured cloth around a sarissa, to show which file was where. It would have helped the men to line up right, wouldn't it?
Sorry, I see this post is full of question marks - I'm pondering!
Fiona

[Phoebus]

Thanks, Phoebus - if I've understood this correctly, then this work of Aelian's was designed to teach the army how to use standards for signalling? So maybe standards that were just for identification came earlier.

I'm not 100% familiar with Aelian, but I believe the idea behind his work was to showcase how the armies of the Successors were fielded and operated. I'm desperately trying to get a hold of a translation for it.

Regarding Hephaestion's "image", I wonder if it was not something in the sense of the paintings or statues you often see Catholics parade during religious celebrations?

[amyntoros]

Thanks, Phoebus - if I've understood this correctly, then this work of Aelian's was designed to teach the army how to use standards for signalling? So maybe standards that were just for identification came earlier.

I'm not 100% familiar with Aelian, but I believe the idea behind his work was to showcase how the armies of the Successors were fielded and operated. I'm desperately trying to get a hold of a translation for it.

I used to think that no English translation had been published since the mid 19th Century, but then there's this page at Ares Publishers. Scroll down and you'll see that Ancient World 19 is listed as Aelian's Manual of Hellenistic Military Tactics. (We can thank an old entry on V. D. Hanson's blog for the information that this 1989 issue is A.M. Devine's "new English translation" of Aelian's book.) Price isn't bad at all, with only an additional $3 for "non-Western Hemisphere" orders.

Ares' home page is here and you'll see that there is a link for an order form to mail or fax which also includes an email address and telephone number. I bought my translation of Polyaenus from Ares Publishers a couple of years ago, but I can't remember how I went about it. I imagine that phone calls from Afghanistan may be difficult and expensive. If so I'd advise an email inquiry before sending in an order because the web page hasn't been updated for a couple of years and the site does say that back issues of Ancient World are limited. Umm, that's if the email address works - I seem to recall that I had problems, but I could be wrong.

Best regards,

[Phoebus]

I really appreciate the information, Amyntoros!

Ironically, I spent the better part of my off-time yesterday (thanks to snail-paced internet) trying to Google every combination of Aelian and A.M. Devine before finally happening on a site that mentioned Ares Publishers!

Again, thanks! That's one of the things I love about this forum--the friendly sharing of information.

[Fiona]

Regarding Hephaestion's "image", I wonder if it was not something in the sense of the paintings or statues you often see Catholics parade during religious celebrations?

I wonder? That's the kind of impression Arrian's words give. I think I was imagining some kind of painted banner, but I suppose a statue kind of figure is always possible. I think though, if it were that, it would definitely have been just on formal, ceremonial occasions, just for practical reasons.
Fiona

[Paralus]

There is mention of the Roman Consuls capturing "standards" during their encounters with Macedonian armies - Pydna I think being one if I recall. Descriptions of Alexander's army (and his father's) are notable for the lack of any reference to such.

[Phoebus]

Or any number of things, really.

[Paralus]

Apologies: it was the description of the slaughter at Cynoscephalae wherein “standards” are mentioned. Livy, 33.7; 33.11:

Eager to press on, Philip was not in the least deterred by the clouds which had descended to the earth after the rain, and he ordered the standard-bearers to march out. But so thick a fog had blotted out the daylight that the standard-bearers could not see their way, nor could the men see their standards. Misled by the confused shouts, the column was thrown into as great disorder as if it had lost its way in a night march…

The Romans broke into the hostile camp in hopes of plunder, but they found that it had to a large extent been cleared out by the Aetolians. 8000 of the enemy perished that day; 5000 were made prisoners. Of the victors about 700 fell. If we are to believe Valerius, who is given to boundless exaggeration, 40,000 of the enemy were killed and-here his invention is not so wild-5700 made prisoners and 249 standards captured. Claudius too writes that 32,000 of the enemy were killed and 4300 made prisoners. We have taken the smaller number, not because it is the smaller, but because we have followed Polybius, who is no untrustworthy authority on Roman history especially when the scene of it is in Greece.

Indeed Polybius is and it is a pity that we don’t possess an account of Alexander’s battles written by his hand. We may have figures for Persian armies that might resemble reality.

That aside, Livy is following – for the great part – Polybius in this description. Polybius, interestingly, at no stage uses the terms “standard” or “standard bearer” in his description of the battle. Whilst this does not, by necessity, mean that standards were not used at all, it concurs with the lack of such terminology with respect to the armies of Alexander or Philip.

I might well be tempted to think its use by Livy is a Roman gloss. The "standards captured" is particularly Roman. They had something of a fetish with their fasces and their standards. Marculs Licinius Crassus, the avaricous and overweening triumvir, lost his army, his head and his "eagles" (standards) at Carhhae in 53 BCE. Augustus made a great song and dance about his "recovery" of these standards in 20 BCE - even if he recovered them by diplomacy. A very Roman thing standards.

One is tempted to think that such likely existed; after all, armies are fond of such things – particularly, as noted, the Roman army – and they do help in organization. It is interesting that they seem not to be mentioned or that I have not noticed it (never thought of it actually). Perhaps we expect too much of a modern gloss?

[Phoebus]

It's one of the reasons why I'm looking forward to owning Aelian's work. I've read sources that mention his work and who it encompassed, but I'd like to see his specifics where the phalanx supernumeraries are concerned.

[amyntoros]

It's one of the reasons why I'm looking forward to owning Aelian's work. I've read sources that mention his work and who it encompassed, but I'd like to see his specifics where the phalanx supernumeraries are concerned.

It occurred to me that - as I remembered it - Heckel in his Macedonian Warrior: Alexander's Elite Infantryman quoted Aelian on the supernumeraries. I checked, and it turned out to be Asclepiodotus (although I believe Aelian consulted the work of Asclepiodotus). Heckel says:

(Page 43) The size of the lochos made the relaying of commands more difficult, for, according to Asclepiodotus (Tactics 2.9), in a unit of 64 (8 x8 ), the men could easily hear all the commands, but with the doubling of the file-size and the creation of squares 16 x 16, it became necessary to add supernumeraries or ektaktoi. There were five of these: a herald (stratokerux), a signalman (semeiophoros), a bugler (salpingtes), an aide (hyperetes), and a file-closer (ouragos). The general (strategos) who served as the taxiarches was almost certainly stationed behind the taxis and on horseback, from which position he sent orders to the various ektaktoi whose job it was to distribute the orders. Each taxis of pezhetairoi (1,500 men) would thus have had 30 supernumeraries.

Also, whilst skimming through the book for the above I found a quote from Curtius wherein he mentions standards, although once again it is difficult to know whether this actually applied to Alexander's time or was a feature of the Hellenistic armies (of whom Curtius was no doubt familiar).

Curtius 3.2.13 The Macedonian line is certainly course and inelegant, but it protects behind its shield and lances immovable wedges of tough, densely-packed soldiers. The Macedonians call it a phalanx, an infantry column that holds it ground. They stand man next to man, arms interlocked with arms. They wait eagerly for their commander's signal, and they are trained to follow the standards and not break ranks.

Best regards,

[Fiona]

Also, whilst skimming through the book for the above I found a quote from Curtius wherein he mentions standards, although once again it is difficult to know whether this actually applied to Alexander's time or was a feature of the Hellenistic armies (of whom Curtius was no doubt familiar).

Curtius 3.2.13 The Macedonian line is certainly course and inelegant, but it protects behind its shield and lances immovable wedges of tough, densely-packed soldiers. The Macedonians call it a phalanx, an infantry column that holds it ground. They stand man next to man, arms interlocked with arms. They wait eagerly for their commander's signal, and they are trained to follow the standards and not break ranks.

As Paralus was saying, armies are fond of standards, and it's well-known that the Romans cared greatly about their eagles - even invested in them the feelings of loyalty that they felt to their own legions, I believe. That can't have come from nowhere - suddenly appeared - so I'm wondering if the standards referred to in the quotation you found from Curtius might not be some kind of precursor. That is, that though standards in the Roman sense would be an anachronism as applied to Alexander's army, yet there was something - referred to as standards for want of another word - that served part of the same purpose, probably the purely organisational one.
Isn't it possible that the file leaders (sorry, I've forgotten the Greek word) had some kind of coloured strip tied around the shafts of their sarissas, to help their own file keep in line? Gradually then, these identifying markers got grander and grander - I can see it happening - until you end up with golden eagles. But Alexander's phalanx would also have been following the standards, as Curtius says, simply by making sure they kept behind the chap with the red cloth, and didn't get muddled up with those yellow cloth fellows in the next file.
Fiona