Historiai

  • Alexander the Great has gone down in history as one of the best generals ever to have lived. After fighting his first battle at just 16 years old in 340BC, Alexander would campaign almost non-stop until his death in 323BC at 32 years old. Throughout this time, he would fight a number of enemies, from Greeks, to Scythians, to Persians, across a variety of battlefields, including open plains, dangerous river crossings and complex sieges. Despite this assortment of enemies and battlefields, as well as often being outnumbered as much as 2:1, he would remain undefeated in his lifetime, solidifying his place as one of the most formidable generals in history.

    The army that Alexander took from Macedonia across the world to India was by far the most powerful army of its time. Its professionalism, flexibility and effectiveness had never before been seen and would not be seen again until almost 400 years later with the Roman legions. Whilst Alexander’s use of this army was by all means incredible, the true genius behind the army’s formation and composition was Alexander’s father, Philip II.

    Philip was a formidable commander in his own right, but his strengths shone more in his military innovations, taking Macedonia from a somewhat weak and backwater kingdom to the strongest power in Greece. This being the case, for us to understand what made Alexander so successful, it is crucial that we understand the army that he inherited from his father, Philip.

    Phalangites

    The backbone of all Hellenistic* armies of the time was the phalanx. This formation was made by hoplites (hop-lights), Greek city-state soldiers with a spear and large shield, forming a wall that was almost unassailable from the front. This formation had served Greek had served Greek armies well for for hundreds of year, being the source of the Greek successes in the Persian Wars. Philip took this tried and tested formation and introduced his own reforms, developing an even more potent force.

    Greek phalanx
    A Greek hoplite phalanx, note the short spear and large shield.

    Philip spent time as a “hostage” (more like a squire, think Theon of Game of Thrones for the Starks) in Thebes where he would spend time learning from the two great Theban generals, Pelopidas (pel-op-ee-das) and Epaminondas (i-pam-in-on-dis)*. These two men had themselves built Thebes from a second rate power into a force powerful enough to crush the legendary Spartan soldiers in open combat through their military innovations. The most significant change they had made was to have a much deeper phalanx than was usual, thus presenting a narrower front, but with more spear points able to engage the enemy in front. Philip, recognising the power of this, mimicked this with his own phalanx; the standard Greek phalanx seems to have been 8 men deep, whilst Philip’s Macedonian phalanx seems to have been more like 16 men deep.

    Macedonian Phalanx
    Macedonian phalangites in phalanx formation, note the longer sarissa pikes and the deep formation

    To maximise on this new formation, Philip also introduced a new way of arming his phalanx, inspired by the innovations of Iphicrates (If-i-crart-ees) of Athens. Iphicrates had introduced a longer spear, along with a smaller shield, to the Athenian hoplites. Philip built on this idea and issued his troops with a 6m long pike, a sarissa (sir-iss-a), also with a smaller shield*. Most other hoplites had used a spear roughly 2-3 metres long, a dory, in one hand, and a large hoplon shield in the other hand (hence the name hoplite). However, the newly armed Macedonian soldiers, known as phalangites (fal-an-jites), wielded their extra-long pike with both hands, while their smaller shield was slung over the forearm of one arm. This crucial innovation, paired with the deeper formation, gave the Macedonian phalanx much more reach than the regular Greek phalanx. It must have been a terrifying prospect for an attacking foe; faced with a wall of spears, he would have had to try battle his way through 6 meters worth of spear points, before even being in striking range of a phalangite. With this in mind, it is easy to see how devastatingly effective these men would have been.

    On top of their better equipment, phalangites were also given much better training than their hoplite counterparts. For the most part, Greek hoplites were citizens called up to fight on behalf of their city-state without too much training. There were some exceptions to this, the Theban Sacred Band and Spartans being notable examples, but on the whole the strength of the Greek phalanx lied in its formation. It was not a hard formation to master, each man simply had to hold his place in the line, shield covering his left side as well as his neighbours right, and thrust with the spear. The effectiveness of this simple formation of citizen soldiers should not be underestimated, Persia had been left licking its wounds multiple times after confronting it. However the lack of training and discipline in the troops can be seen in the fact that Greek phalanxes tended to drift to the right as each man sought to take more cover behind his neighbours shield. These hoplites were not expected to carry out complex drills or changes in formation, but simply to act as a wall.

    hoplite v phalngite
    A Macedonian phalangite (left) compared to a Greek hoplite (right)

    Philip, on the other hand, created a professional army. Unlike the hoplites, the phalangites were not farmers who were called up to service only when needed and required to supply their own equipment; instead they were full time soldiers who were given standardised equipment by the state and given proper training. They were able to perform complex manoeuvres and carry out forced marches giving the Macedonian infantry a level of professionalism almost unheard of in the Greek world. Indeed, in one of Alexander’s confrontations against the Illyrians (the peoples roughly between modern Albania and Croatia), the phalangites drilled before battle, executing complex formation changes and manoeuvres in such a disciplined manner that many Illyrians simply decided to call it a day and fled.

    These phalangites were the backbone on the Macedonian army upon which the rest of the army would be built. In battle they acted as the main line providing a solid platform around which Alexander would construct his tactics. Their professionalism and ability to engage and hold a much larger enemy force would be crucial in Alexander’s campaigns, though the credit for their creation and effectiveness must be given largely to Philip.

    Hypaspists

    While the phalangites were deadly from the front, their phalanx formation relied on it maintaining its structure and so was slow, unwieldy and extremely vulnerable from the flanks and rear. To counter this, Philip introduced an elite heavy infantry unit into the Macedonian army to protect the phalanx, the hypaspists (hip-as-pissts).

    hypaspists
    A hypaspists, note the comparison to the hoplite above with the large shield, and shorter spear than the phalangite.

    Picked from the best of the phalangites, these soldiers were armed more like the traditional Greek hoplite with a larger shield and shorter spear, allowing them more flexibility than the sarissa armed phalangites. Furthermore, as they did not rely on the phalanx formation, they could react more quickly to any outflanking manoeuvres and move rapidly to support the cavalry on the wings if need be. The hypaspists were stationed on the right flank of the phalanx, a traditional place of honour in Hellenic armies. Indeed, Alexander himself would take up position on the right with his Companion cavalry which would be used to strike the main offensive blows. We can see why, therefore, it was important that the hypaspists be more flexible and highly trained. Once the Companions advanced, the phalanx’s right flank would be exposed were it not for the hypaspists. Alternatively, if the Companions needed infantry support, they could rapidly advance to provide assistance.

    As a more elite unit, these troops acted also as the foot bodyguard of Philip and Alexander and were picked for dangerous special missions, such as scaling cliff faces or moving quickly across a river. In Alexander’s campaigns, they played a highly prominent role during sieges where their more flexible armament, greater skill and experience gave them more utility than the phalangites.  It seems that they were almost like the Green Berets of the Macedonian army; elite and highly trained, but in large enough numbers, approximately 3000, to be used as a force individually. The hypaspists were an essential introduction to the Macedonian army by Philip as it helped to negate the phalanx’s key weaknesses; its vulnerable flanks and poor manoeuvrability. Their inclusion in the army was vital as it gave Alexander more tactical options than his phalangites did as well as being able to provide the security Alexander needed to be able to be extremely aggressive with his Companions, which would prove to be crucial in many of his battles.

    Light Infantry

    peltast
    A peltast, equipped in much the same way as the Thracians and Agrianians

    The light infantry, psiloi (sil-oi) of the Macedonian army has three units of note: the Agrianian (Ag-ree-ain-ian) Peltasts (pelt-asst), the Thracian (Thray-see-un) Peltasts and the Cretan Archers. The Agrianian Peltasts seem to have been an elite unit within the light infantry, also being stationed on the far right, whilst the Thracians fulfilled a similar role, but on the left. Both of these peltasts were skirmishers, wearing little armour and being armed with javelins or slings. The Agrianians seem to have had a more offensive role often being used in conjunction with the hypaspists, providing fast infantry support for the cavalry and harassing any potentially outflanking foes, whilst the Thracians had a similar but more defensive role, protecting the left flank of the phalanx. These two units were also crucial to the army as, alongside the hypaspists, their lighter armour and looser formation meant they could move rapidly in more difficult terrain than the  phalanx could.

    Archers were fairly rare in Greek armies, however, the Cretans had a reputation of being particularly deadly, and so were often hired as mercenaries by Philip and Alexander to provide some range to the army. These archers would likely have been deployed in front of the main force at the start of the battle, before withdrawing behind the main line as needed. Lastly, in the rear of the Macedonian army, were the Greek allied infantry. These would have been traditional Greek hoplites from allied Greek city-states whose role was to protect the rear of the phalanx and the baggage train at the back of the army.

    Summary

    So overall, it should clear to see how crucial Philip’s infantry innovations were in building a formidable and flexible army. Most other Greek armies relied on the phalanx alone being the winning force in the battle. The Macedonian infantry however, was a true example of combined arms tactics, each part complimenting the other: as the phalangites pikes could pin down and engage the enemy infantry, they could do so safe in the knowledge that the peltasts and hypaspists would guard their flanks; if the cavalry advanced on the right flank, the hypaspists could either rush to support them, or remain to guard the flank in their place; where the terrain proved to difficult for the phalanx, the hypaspists and light infantry could be used instead. It was a truly devastating force, effective in both open battlefields and in sieges.

    Whilst it would be silly to not recognise Alexander’s excellent use of this infantry, it is important to remember that the mastermind behind their creation was Philip and so he must also be credited with their success. In this powerful infantry body, Philip had provided Alexander with an anvil. However, Macedonia’s true power lied in its devastating hammer; the cavalry.


    *A general term for all Greek nations/city-states, comparable to words like Nordic or Germanic.

    *The ‘I’ here should sound like the ‘I’ in ‘it’ rather than rhyming with eye.

    *Same as above, once you get your ear in, pronouncing the names is not as hard as it initially seems!

    *They were also issued a sword, however, this was much more of a backup weapon and, so long as the phalanx remained intact, would rarely be used.

  • Introduction

    This site is a work of passion that will aim to bridge the gap in Ancient History between the overly academic/scholarly works and the mainstream ‘pop history’. Academic works and sites are obviously fantastic at providing interesting information, but they often end up similar to magnolia wall paint; practical but not exciting. ‘Pop history’ is the antithesis of this. It is the articles written by sites such as Buzzfeed which aim to appeal to as broad a market as possible by people who, it seems, have no knowledge of topic they are actually writing about. Often these articles harbour glaring historical errors and so only serve to frustrate those who actually care about the subject and are looking for an informative, entertaining, little read.

    This site is going to attempt to blend these two styles and so reach a middle ground. There will be a blend of essays, which will hopefully appeal to the more academically interested, as well as more brief overviews of historical figures/events for those looking for a more easily accessible, quick injection of information.

    Ancient History is my personal passion and the area of which I’m most knowledgeable, specifically Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. If you are looking for a more general historical overview, or for more modern history, then this site is not for you my friend! I will be dealing purely with all things Ancient. On the whole, this will be largely focused on history, but I may well lurch into literature, art or philosophy as need be/when I want to.

    The name Historiai is an homage (rip-off) of Herodotus’ seminal work The Histories. Early on his book, Herodotus lays out his motivation for writing:

    “so that neither what has come to be from man in time might become faded, nor that great and wondrous deeds…might be without their glory”

    My motivation is much the same; the people who towered like titans in the Ancient World, strolling across the ages with the aftershock of their footsteps still felt today. Many of these names are known to us, such as Pericles, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, and while I will certainly not neglect these giants, I will also aim to shine a light on those characters in history who often slip between the cracks, but are nonetheless fascinating in their own right.

    Whether you read this as an academic, or as someone who is simply interested in Ancient History, I hope you can find something here to sate your appetite!

    To somewhat steal a Richard Dawkins quote; “History is interesting, and if you don’t think so, you can fuck off”.