Hellenistic armies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hellenistic armies is the term applied to the armies of the successor kingdoms which emerged after the death of the Alexander the Great. After his death, Alexander's huge empire was torn between his succesors, the Diadochi. During the Wars of the Diadochi the Macedonian army, developed by Alexander and his father Philip II gradually changed while adopting new units and tactics and further developing Macedonian warfare. The armies of the Diadochi already differ from that of Alexander's but the change was epitomized in the main Hellenistic kingdoms of the Seleucid Empire, the Ptolemaic Egypt , the Antigonid kingdom and in the fraction states of the Attalid Pergamum, Pontus, Epirus and other Hellenistic principalities.

[edit] Numerical strength

Would be impossible to ascertain and nail down definitely since every campaign, and ruler would require a differing strength. The Diadochi were capable of bringing to the field some of the largest armies of their day, and could have easily outmatched the numerical strength of either Phillip II or Alexander's Macedonian full strength contingents.

[edit] Typical units and formations

[edit] Hellenistic infantry

Heavily armed for the period in question. Hellenistic armies were, by and large, quie similar to that of Philip and Alexander's Macedonian armies. The Hellenistic Infantry were just one of many components that worked together to form a combined, multi-faceted army. The backbone of these forces was the heavy phalanx infantry formation, characterized by its dense ranks, and long, forward projecting spears. The soldiers of these phalanxes were professional soldiers (known as phalangites), drilled in tactics, weapon use (their spear and short sword) and formation. This made them increidibly efficient when it came to maneuvering on the battlefield, and could therefore execute complex movements with relative ease. It is crucial to note that the role of the phalanx on the battlefield was to act as an anchor for the entire army, holding the enemey in place, while the cavalry snuck around the flanks and delivered the fatal blow to cripple their opponents. The phalanx was more or less pathetic when employed as a purely offensive weapon (it was slow and could not give chase to the enemy, nor could it offer any tactical advantage from maneuverability because it had none).

Equipment varied over the years, and was also dependent on the geographical region, and preference of the ruler, but it basically boiled down to the following. For armour: a simple, open-faced helm (sometimes with cheek protectors), a leather, or padded cuirass to cover the torso, and a large shield, secured by a shoulder harness, or, more often than not, a buckler (a more abrupt, smaller shield), fastened to the offhand (left) of the phalangite. Greaves were also worn to cover the shins of the soldier as he stood his ground.

The primary weapon of the phalangite was the sarissa, a massive 18 foot spear, pioneered by Philip of Macedon to outrange existed spear formations during his time. In one-one-one combat this spear was utterly useless, but in a compact forward facing infantry formation this spear was unsurpassed in its effectiveness. The first 5 ranks of the phalanx would have their spears projecting horizontally to face the enemy, and the subsequent back ranks would each angle back their spears in a serried fashion. As the front ranks were killed off and depleted in combat, the rear ranks for lower their spears and step forward to maintain cohesion in the line. In the event of close-combat melee, or in circumstances where the sarissa was impractical, a short sword was also worn to help protect the phalangite.

The primary drawback of these infantry formations is no doubt their vulnerability to attack from the rear and flanks, since all their spears are pointing forwards, creating an inpenetrable wall. This formation also had a tendency to fracture when led across broken terrain for extended periods of time in battle formation. The Romans would later be able to use this weakness against the phalanx as their more agile legionnaries could sift into the broke ranks and create mayhem amonst the phalangites.

As the reign of the Diadochi persisted (late 4th century, to technically the fall of Ptolemy XII of Egypt at the hands of Julius Caesar- mid 1st Century), they grew to rely more and more upon the phalanx to ensure victory. The cavalry and light infantry wings of the holistic combat formation were neglected and fell into disrepair as the phalanx was deepened and given longer spears. The belief that these phalanx walls were unbreakable in combat proved to be a false hope, and were quickly dispelled when confronted by the vigourous and flexible formations of the Roman legions at Pydna and Cynosephalae (2nd Century BC).

It is worth noting the ongoing comparison of which formation was truly better: the legion or the phalanx. Many detractors to the phalanx, which favour the legion, state that in many engagements between the two (such as the afrementioned Pydna and Cynosephalae), the legion was the clear victor, and hence was a superior formation. However proponents of the phalanx suggest that, had the other arms of the Diadochi army been properly maintained (i.e. the companion cavalry and light infantry), than the weaknesses of the phalanx would have been offset and it could have successfully held the field against the legions. Remember, Pyrrhus of Epirus gained several (if costly) victories over the Romans (275 BC at Heraclea), and he properly coordinated between the phalanx and other arms available in his forces.

[edit] Hellenistic cavalry

[edit] Heavy Hellenistic cavalry

The first version of heavy cavalry developed and employed by the Hellenic Kingdoms were the Companion Cavalry, the landed aristocracy which Philip II and his son Alexander relied so heavily upon for their killing strokes. Stirrups were unknown during this time, so impact charges were limited in their effectiveness. They were armoured thoroughly enough, with a plated cuirass (chest and backplate), greaves, and a helmet. Their weapons consisted of a long spear (xyston), and a sword in the event that their spear was broken. It appears that no shield was worn by the Companion Cavalry, perhaps because it decreased manaeuverability or balance. In any event, it didn't seem to hamper their effectiveness which relied on a bold charge into the weak link in the enemy lines which were held in place by the phalanx, followed by savage hand to hand combat.

[edit] Cataphracts

The cataphracts are the heavily armed and armoured cavalrymen. The Hellenic Kingdoms inherited this style of cavalry from the eastern regions it came to dominate since Alexander trounced the Persian Empire during his reign (336 - 323 B.C.). Both man and horse were entirely encased in armour, either as scale or banded segments sewn onto a fabric. Even the riders face was covered in seamless metal helm. As you can well imagine, the weight carried by the horse was quite cumbersome, and swift, prolonged charges were out of the question. Instead cataphracts strolled to within a reasonable distance before a charge and only exerted energy for s single shot at the enemy. Once in combat the cataphract could wade through the enemy ranks at his own discretion, both himself and his horse being impervious to much damage. The staying power of these units, due to their armour was immense, but the armour was stifling and tiresome if worn for extended periods of time, and a great amount of endurance was necessary to wear them, let alone fight a pitched battle in them.

The standard weapon of the cataphract was the spear, something common among most cavalry. For close-quarter combat, a mace or sword was made available as a secondary weapon. The mace and cataphract ideas were combined into the Sassanid-introduced and Roman named Cibinarii who were armoured man and beast in chainmail and armed with a mace.

[edit] Light Hellenistic cavlary

[edit] Light horse archers

Probably recruited from the Scythians, famous horse archers

[edit] Special units

[edit] Chariots

More novel than effective. The shock value of these weapons in Hellenistic armies was undeniable, but they were impractical, and only ideal under narrow circumstances. Against a massed formation of pikemen (i.e. phalanx) scythed chariots were useless, but against broken or loose formations of infantry they were more valuable. More often than not, chariots were a rarity amongst Hellenistic armies, and their impact on the battlefield was insignificant.

[edit] Elephants

The war elephant took a tremendous amount of time and money to train. Depending on the kingdom, two different breeds of elephant could be exploited for war: the African elephant (used by the Ptolemies of Egypt), or the Indian elephant (used by the Seleucid Empire). The African elephant was much smaller than the Indian elephant, but still a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield.

War elephants were typically fitted with a mahout (tower) on their back which housed several soldiers armed with spears and projectiles (arrows, javelins, darts, sling-stones) to unload on the enemy. The rider sat across the neck and guided the elephant into battle. Armour too, was sometimes wrapped around the elephant to protect them and increase their natural defence offered by their hides. The charge of an elephant column was nearly impossible to withstand, due to the interia and weight that would be bearing down on their opponents. A charge, if successfully executed, could be the deciding factor in the outcome of a battle.

The difficulty with elephants, and every commander that had the luxury (and anxiety) of dealing with them was their tendency to trample their friendly units, as well as the enemy once they were panicked. Hannibal of Carthage was the victim of his own elephants at the Battle of Zama in 202 B.C. when Scipio Africanus had his legionaries clash their weapons against their shields during an elephant rush and it scared them into a panicked rout. This, coupled with the betrayel of the Numidians to Scipio's side allowed him to narrowly defeat Hannibal in what would have otherwise been a Carthaginian victory.

[edit] Battle arrays

Bar-ba-loots: little furry things

swanee swans: singing swans

[edit] Siege warfare

Catapults and Ballista

[edit] Intra-Hellenistic conflicts

[edit] Facing different armies

[edit] Military thought

[edit] Major wars

[edit] Major battles

[edit] Further reading

Anglim, Simon et al., (2003), Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World (3000 B.C. to 500 A.D.): Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics, Thomas Dunne Books.
Bar-Kochva, B. (1976), "The Seleucid Army: Organisation and Tactics in the Great Campaigns
Connolly, Peter , (2006), Greece and Rome at War, Greenhill Books, 2nd edition.
Hansen, Esther V., The Attalids of Pergamon, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press; London: Cornell University Press Ltd (1971)
Livy, History of Rome, Rev. Canon Roberts (translator), Ernest Rhys (Ed.); (1905) London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.
Polybius, Histories, Evelyn S. Shuckburgh (translator); London, New York. Macmillan (1889); Reprint Bloomington (1962).
Tarn, W.W. (1930) 'Hellenistic military developments'
Walbank, F. W. (1940) Philip V of Macedon
Warry, John Gibson, (1995), Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome, University of Oklahoma Press.
Wilkes, John, The Illyrians, Blackwell Publishers (December 1, 1995). ISBN 0-631-19807-5

[edit] External links