Microsoft Word - front-1-4438-1743-0.rtf Read online

historians who claim that it was used to bind two separate parts of the shaft

  are right: the sleeve’s length (16 cm) was just not long enough. Perhaps

  the sleeve was put on a single dogwood shaft to give the rider a better grip

  on the spear. Like the heavy infantry sarissa, the cavalry equivalent had an

  iron tipped stub serving as a reserve spearhead if the front part of the spear

  was broken, which happened quite frequently in battle. Moreover it

  provided a counterbalance so that the cavalryman was able to hold 60% of

  the spear (counting from the tip of the spearhead) in front of him, which

  meant that he had a better chance of spearing an opponent before being

  struck himself. We do not know when Philip II equipped his cavalry with

  sarissai. Some historians presume that they were first used at the Battle of

  Chaeronea. Apart from the sarissa, riders also had slightly curved swords

  used for cutting and javelins. The hetairoi, fitted in armour and holding

  long spears, should not be compared to a European cavalry in the Middle

  Ages, for in antiquity two basic pieces of equipment later considered to be

  indispensable were quite unknown: the saddle and the stirrups. Without

  these not only controlling a horse was much more difficult than in later

  times but also the rider’s stability on the horse left a lot to be desired. This

  of course made the training of riders a very long and difficult process, but

  it also affected the method of fighting. The Macedonians were the first in

  71 Garlan 1994, p. 687; Hammond 1996, pp. 31-32; Hanson 1999, p. 150; Lush

  2007, pp. 16-17.

  34

  Chapter I

  the west to successfully master cavalry charges with lances where the

  momentum of the charging horse greatly increased the weapon’s impact.

  However, the hetairoi could not use their sarissai like a medieval lance

  which was aimed at the easiest target, i.e. the opponent’s chest and

  stomach, for without a saddle the recoil from the impact could easily

  knock the charging rider off his horse. To avoid this, Macedonian riders

  aimed their sarissa at the opponent’s head. Though this was a much more

  difficult target to hit, if correctly executed, it greatly reduced the risk of

  being thrown off one’s horse.72

  The 4th century brought to Greece a cavalry renaissance, for in

  preceding centuries it had been a completely marginalised part of the

  armed forces. Poleis, at least the larger ones, now expanded their old

  cavalry units or founded quite new ones. In Athens the number of riders

  was increased to 1,000. However, the Greek cavalry still by and large

  played secondary roles: carrying out reconnaissance, protecting the

  phalanx flanks during battle and chasing the defeated enemy. The great

  reformers of the Boeotian army Pelopidas and Epaminondas had

  experimented with using the cavalry to attack the flanks of enemy

  phalanxes and that could not have escaped Philip’s notice. But it was only

  when Philip became king that the cavalry started being used to attack and

  break up enemy infantry formations on a large scale, and later this method

  of warfare was further developed with great success by Alexander. The

  Macedonian cavalry attacked in a wedge formation, which was an idea

  adopted from the Scythians either directly or via the Thracians. The

  hetairoi’s basic tactical unit, called the ile, comprised 136 cavalrymen who

  when attacking formed a wedge of sixteen ranks in which the number of

  riders in each rank was follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

  15 and 16. Such a configuration enabled the cavalry unit to effectively

  search for weak points in the enemy’s infantry formations. It also made a

  difference in the midst of the battle’s chaos and noise when normally the

  commanding officer’s verbal orders or signals could go unnoticed by the

  riders. With the commanding officer at the front of a wedge shaped

  formation the hetairoi could always see him and therefore even in the

  thick of battle they were able to tactically retreat and carry out other

  manoeuvres.73

  72 Markle 1982, pp. 89-91; Manti 1983; Manti 1994; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 74-75;

  Borza 1990, pp. 203-205; Mixter 1992, pp. 25-27; Hammond 1996, pp. 30-31.

  73 Arr., Tact. , 16.6. Markle 1978, p. 486; Lane Fox 1973, p. 75; Daniel 1992;

  Corvisier 2002, pp. 107-108; Worthington 2004, p. 12; Carney 2006, pp. 65-66;

  Sekunda 2007, pp. 331-332.

  Childhood, Family, Macedonia

  35

  However, the greatest breakthrough in 4th-century western warfare

  concerned military engineering and siege techniques. The first ever war

  machines in Greek history were used by Pericles in 440/439 during the

  Athenian siege of Samos. They included a battering ram and special sheds

  ( chelonai) to protect the soldiers beneath the walls. Siege machines were

  also used during the Peloponnesian War, though here they did not prove to

  be very successful. More often than not cities were forced to surrender

  after a long blockade or alternatively a traitor was found to open the gate.

  Thus even the armies of great military powers frequently needed many

  months to defeat a relatively small city-state; the most spectacular example

  was the two-year (429-427) siege of Plataea by the Peloponnesians and

  Thebans. The taking and not only besieging of enemy fortresses was

  begun by the tyrant of Syracuse Dionysius the Elder in the long lasting

  war against the Carthaginians in Sicily. In 397, during the famous siege of

  the island’s main Punic fortress Motya, he successfully used siege towers.

  This machine he had in fact copied off the Carthaginians, who had

  preserved the Near Eastern techniques of siege warfare. It was also during

  this siege that catapults, a Greek invention, were for the first time used.74

  Though Dionysius’ military engineering achievements had been

  known in Greece since around 375, the large scale application of these

  methods was first begun by Philip II. Already in 357, at the start of his

  reign, he captured Amphipolis using battering rams to destroy part of the

  city’s walls. In his next important siege – Olynthus 349/348 – he used not

  only battering rams but also machines throwing projectiles. During

  excavations in this town archaeologists have discovered many large

  bronze spearheads measuring 6.6-7 cm. Some bear Philip’s name and were

  therefore without a doubt fired by the Macedonian king’s soldiers. These

  had been the heads of 1.8 m-long spears with an approximately 2.5 cm

  diameter that could be fired some 300 m from a catapult which did not

  resemble later machines of that name. This original catapult, referred to in

  some sources as the oxybeles, was more similar to the medieval crossbow

  and, indeed, it fired bolts.75 It was after the capture of Olynthus that the

  greatest advances in siege warfare were made. At the 340 siege of

  Perinthus Philip had at his disposal battering rams, bolt firing machines,

  city wall scaling ladders and siege towers that were 36 m tall, therefore

  higher than the cities fortifications. At that stage the towers were probably

  not yet mobile. Instead they were transported in parts and reconstructed<
br />
  close to the enemy fortress walls. At the next battle, that of Byzantium,

  74 Diod., 12.28.2-3, 13.54.7, 14.49-53.

  75 Aen. Tact., 32.8; Diod., 16.8.2. Marsden 1977; Snodgrass 1999, pp. 116-117.

  36

  Chapter I

  Philip’s army now had improved siege machines constructed by Polyeidus

  of Thessaly. Undoubtedly these would have already included stone

  throwing catapults which utilised the energy accumulated in coiled ropes

  lines made from human hair.76

  6. Alexander’s childhood and school years

  Extant ancient sources provide surprisingly little information on the first

  13 years of the future great conqueror’s life. What we have are chiefly

  anecdotes mainly preserved in the works of Plutarch. The obvious purpose

  of these anecdotes was to illustrate Alexander’s personality and his

  philosophical virtues, which were incidentally compatible with the method

  Plutarch had formulated himself: ‘For it is not Histories that I am writing,

  but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a

  manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest

  often makes a greater revelation of character than battles where thousands

  fall…’77 At the same time, however, events that we would consider to be

  noteworthy are frequently left out. For example, we know Alexander had a

  sister called Cleopatra but we do not know the date she was born and

  historians can only speculate that it was either in 355 or 354. Cleopatra

  was to play an important role in Macedonia’s history after her brother had

  set off on his expedition to the East.78

  No doubt soon after his birth Alexander was handed over to a wet

  nurse, a well born Macedonian woman by the name of Lanice. It is

  possible that the honour of feeding the royal son led to a very strong

  family tie with Argead dynasty because three of her sons served

  Alexander, two of whom fell at Miletus. Lanice’s brother Cleitus the

  Black became one of Alexander’s closest companions, who saved his life

  at the Battle of the Granicus only to be later, in 328, speared to death by

  Alexander when the latter was in a drunken rage. Historians agree that in

  his childhood Alexander was very much under his mother’s care and that

  he had inherited from her his characteristic impulsiveness, whereas from

  Philip level headedness. Alexander’s rivalry with his father has frequently

  been used as an example to stress how close he was to his mother. These,

  however, are mere speculations and historical sources do not allow us to

  make such assumptions. On the other hand Olympias may have been

  76 Diod., 16.72-76; Ath. Mech., 10.5-10 and Vitr., 10.13.3 (both after

  Agesistratos). Marsden 1977; Ferrill 1997, pp. 170-175; Hanson 1999, pp. 155-

  160; van Wees 2000, p. 403; Worthington 2008, pp. 31-32.

  77 Plu., Alex. , 1.2. Unz 1985, p. 171; Hamilton 1999, pp. xxxviii-xxxix.

  78 Satyr., ap. Ath., 13.5. Carney 2000, pp. 75-76.

  Childhood, Family, Macedonia

  37

  instrumental in appointing various teachers for Alexander, among them

  Leonidas, who was for a time her son’s main tutor, and Lysimachus from

  Acarnania, a land neighbouring to Epirus. We know the professional

  specialisations of some of the teachers, for example his teachers of music,

  but of course there also had to be teachers who were experts of grammar,

  arithmetic, rhetoric and astronomy. The names of these teachers are given

  in the Alexander Romance but they are not confirmed in other sources and

  are therefore not utterly credible. Though sources do not mention this, an

  obvious part of the Macedonian prince’s education, as of every Macedonian

  aristocrat’s education, would have been horse riding and use of weapons.79

  Leonidas was a stickler for discipline and it was in such a spirit that he

  educated the young Alexander. One day he rebuked Alexander for using

  sacrificial incense too liberally saying that he would be able to make such

  offerings of incense only once he had conquered the lands from where it

  came. Alexander took this incident to heart and later from among the

  things he had plundered in Gaza he allegedly sent his teacher 500 talents

  of incense and 100 talents of Myrrh, urging him to show the gods

  magnanimity.80 With regard to Lysimachus there is a tale that he

  introduced the fashion for Alexander and his circle to adopt the names of

  Homeric heroes. Lysimachus called himself Phoenix after Achilles’

  companion; Alexander became Achilles and his father Peleus. We do not

  know whether it was Lysimachus who instilled into Alexander his

  fascination with Homer but it is certain that Homer was Alexander’s

  favourite author. Indeed, more than once in his life Alexander tried to

  achieve things equal to those achieved by Homer’s heroes – Achilles in

  particular. It is possible as well that Alexander’s admiration of Achilles

  was fostered by his mother Olympias who counted Achilles among her

  ancestors.81 Alexander had quite a thorough education in literature, he

  knew Euripides by heart and had read other tragic authors, as well as the

  dithyrambic poets Telestes and Philoxenus, the historian Philistus and

  certainly other authors too. Most of this literature must have been read

  79 Curt., 8.2.8-9; Plu., Alex. , 5.7-8; Arr., An. , 4.9.3-4; Just., 12.6; Ps.-Callisth., 1.13.4. Berve 1926, no. 462; Wilcken 1967, pp. 53-54; Hamilton 1965, p. 117;

  Hamilton 1974, pp. 29-32; Hamilton 1999, p. 16; Lane Fox 1973, pp. 45-46;

  Carney 1987, p. 42; Carney 2000, pp. 64-65; Fredricksmeyer 1990, p. 301; Heckel

  1992, pp. 34-37.

  80 Plu., Alex. , 25.6-8; Plu., mor. , 179e; Plin., Nat. , 12.62.

  81 Plu., Alex. , 5.8, 8.2; Plu., mor. , 327f ; Hom., Il. , 9.168-169. Berve 1926, no. 481; Dascalakis 1965, p. 170 ; Hamilton 1999, p. 14; Carney 2006, p. 6; Thomas 2007,

  p. 97.

  38

  Chapter I

  during his school years rather than in adult life when he was so preoccupied

  with politics and military affairs.82

  Although they are far from coherent with one another, all the stories of

  the young prince’s upbringing indicate that from the earliest years his

  parents devoted a lot of attention to it. In the case of Philip, who made all

  the most important decisions in the palace and state, this would suggest

  that from the start he envisioned Alexander to be his successor instead of

  his other son Arrhidaeus, who was born almost at the same time as

  Alexander. This could be associated with the fact that the mental

  retardation of Arrhidaeus was noticed early in his childhood and this made

  the Philip’s other son quite unsuitable as a candidate to the throne.83

  Ancient sources include anecdotes showing Alexander to have been a

  boy of great physical dexterity, emotionally mature well above his age,

  interested in the outside world, ambitious and aware of his own

  importance. He excelled in running but, despite the insistence of his father

  and colleagues, refused to compete in the Olympic Games on account of

  the fact that unlike him the other competitors would not be monarchs.

  Indeed a later legend has him competing in a chariot race at Olympia

  again
st the sons of other kings and satraps. Such tales served to foretell

  Alexander’s negative attitude to sport or rather his disregard for

  sportsmen. When later looking at statues of Olympic and Pythian victors

  displayed at Miletus Alexander asked: ‘and where those men of such

  magnificent bodies were when the barbarians besieged your town?’ His

  biographer Plutarch interprets Alexander’s reservations regarding sport as

  an element of the perceived image of a philosopher king who valued the

  fine arts, literature and philosophy more than athletic challenges.

  Alexander’s intellectual maturity and early plans (or perhaps just dreams)

  of conquering Asia are illustrated in an anecdote about how at the

  Macedonian court, at a time when Philip was absent, emissaries of the

  Great King were received by Alexander. He was said to have amazed the

  ambassadors by not asking questions – as most people his age would have

  done – about the legendary wealth, the hanging gardens and other wonders

  of the Achaemenid court, but about the network of roads, the distances to

  places and the position held by the Great King in battle formations.

  Finally, Alexander’s ambitions and urge to act are expressed in the

  concern he is said to have shown on receiving news of his father’s

  victories that as a consequence there would be nothing of significance left

  for him to later conquer. The most famous incident related by biographers

  82 Plu., Alex. , 8.3 ; Nikobule, FGrH, 127 F2.

  83 Carney 1987, p. 42.

  Childhood, Family, Macedonia

  39

  from Alexander’s childhood, one illustrating his ability to control men and

  beasts as well as to succeed where others failed, is his taming of a horse

  called Bucephalus. This magnificent black Thessalian stallion had been

  offered for sale to Philip by a man called Philoneicus, but the horse would

  not allow itself to be mounted. Later legend even has it devouring human

  flesh. However, Alexander, who had cleverly noticed that the horse’s wild

  behaviour resulted from the fact that it was afraid of its own shadow, was

  able to calm the animal down, mount it and then ride it. The onlooking