See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325380664

Chapter 1 Pt 4: Light Cavalry

Preprint · May 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14080.33287

CITATIONS READS

0 301

1 author:

Kathleen D Toohey
International Arthurian Society (North American Branch)
55 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kathleen D Toohey on 26 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Battle Tactics of
Alexander the Great
Chapter 1
Part 4

By
Kathleen Toohey

(Plaster cast of “fragment from a relief stele showing a battle between horsemen and hoplites”, War
Museum of Athens, 2018. Marble original exhibited in the Athens National Museum.)

18
CAVALRY
At this point, my original thesis began with the following brief comment:
Unlike the infantry, with a couple of exceptions, Alexander’s cavalry is not so easily
divided into the distinct light and heavy cavalry types. The main cause of this is a lack of
adequate information in our sources
I then began my discussion of the Light Cavalry with the following statement:
The mounted archers are the only cavalry that can be identified with any certainty, as belonging
to this category. Adding in a footnote, The mounted javelin men that Arrian mentions after
Gaugamela98 may perhaps also belong in this category, though they are at one point described by
Arrian as charging with three hipparchies of the Companions which may argue against such a
view.99 (IV.4.7) However, since they play no part in the major battles, the matter will be left
open.
This was simply wrong, and paid no regard here to the combat roles of the Thracian and
allied cavalry, and that of the Thessalians, who defended the left flank of Alexander’s line (with
some variations) in at least his major battles from the Granicus to Gaugamela. This major
oversight may indeed have been due in large part to the lack of information in the sources.
However, with the benefit of hindsight I may well have been mislead by the following comment
in Brunt’s introduction to translation of Arrian. Speaking of the introduction Oriental horsemen
into Alexander’s army, Brunt states that “from 330 ... we hear of mounted javelin-men and
mounted archers, and “there were no such units among his European cavalry”.100
Whatever the reasons, this is a significant oversight I shall now attempt to address.
Light Cavalry
“Initially the Union Army showed little interest in cavalry. General Winfield Scott, the
commander in chief of the Union armies, believed the terrain and new weaponry did not favor
cavalry operations. The introduction of the rifle meant artillery and cavalry were now
vulnerable to the infantry at a much greater range. Union cavalry was attached to infantry units
and used as orderlies, messengers, and guards. Some cavalry units served as escorts for
generals. In this capacity cavalrymen also performed courier duty and other details for the
general and his staff. During campaigns, the Confederates often sent cavalry into the Union rear
area to disrupt command, control, and communications...”101
This brief thesis excerpt offers a good example of the way the use of cavalry has
repeatedly changed with the circumstances of the time.102

98
Arrian III. 25. 5; 29. 7; IV. 4. 7; 17. 3; 23. 1, for example.
99
In fighting against the Scythians, Arrian IV. 4. 7. In my original Honours thesis, after the discussion of unit
types, because of time and paper length constraints, I focused only on the major battles. Back then it was not
possible to pay to much attention to the smaller engagements.
100
Brunt 1, p. Lxxiv.
101
Leach, Maj. Robert Blake, The Role of Union Cavalry during the Atlanta Campaign, thesis presented to the
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, 1994, p. 5.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a284554.pdf
102
See also the introduction to Gaebel, Robert E., Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, Norman,
University of Oklahoma Press, 2002, pp. 3 – 15.

19
 As noted above, during the major battles of his Persian campaign, Alexander used units of
Thracian, allied and Thessalian cavalry to defend the left flank of his battle line. These troops, I
am now confident, were all light cavalry units.
The allied cavalry will have been Greek cavalry, supplied by the city states of the League
of Corinth under the terms of the alliance agreement.103 Like the allied infantry, they were
probably regarded as less than reliable. This may explain why we find them at the Granicus
posted between the Thracian and Thessalian cavalry.104 They would have been “equipped with a
helmet and breastplate ... but ... no shield”.105 They usually wore a sword at their waist, and, if
they followed Xenophon’s advice, they will have carried two javelins, one for throwing and the
other for close combat.106 Such equipment is fully consistent with a light cavalry role. For
Greek cavalry, as Brunt succinctly puts it, this involved:
 “reconnaissance;
 “ravaging the country;107
 “hampering similar operations by the enemy;
 “pursuing a broken army or covering its retreat;108 or
 “hurling missiles at a hoplite line.”109
The latter is in accord with Gaebel’s graphic assessment as well – such cavalry “could
move ... against the infantry or cavalry, then halt, launch their javelins, wheel, and gallop
away”.110 Barring the halt before firing, this is the standard attack pattern of light cavalry
against formed heavy infantry, and even against heavy cavalry in the right circumstances. The
intent is not to defeat the enemy in a single attack but to weaken them. That applies to both the
hoplite phalanx, and, to a lesser extent, the Macedonian pezhetairoi phalanx.
As Gaebel’s acknowledges later, “At no time in the history of warfare is there clear
evidence that cavalry were able, in frontal attack, to charge and defeat a well trained body of
infantry that preserved its formation.”111 Consequently, Gaebel’s earlier suggestion, p. 31, that,
“instead of retiring after hurling one javelin, (the Greek cavalry) could close with the enemy,
using the second javelin for ... thrusting”,112 he can only be referring to action against a broken
or significantly disordered enemy.
Light cavalry attacks against heavy infantry, if they are even made, are usually a war of
attrition. A single attack would not normally afflict sufficient casualties to disorder or break a
hoplite or pezhetairoi phalanx, but paced, repeated attacks might. Assuming that the phalanx did
not have defending cavalry or light infantry of its own to counter or deter such attacks. Which
was usually the case.

103
Justin 9.5. Specifically identified as 600 light cavalry, Ashley, James R., The Macedonian Empire: The Era of
Warfare under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359 – 323 B.C., Jefferson, McFarland, 1998, p. 33.
104
Arrian I. 14. 3.
105
According to Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 29, citing Spence, I.G., The Cavalry of Ancient Greece, pp. 60 –
65. (Ashley, by contrast, claims that they did carry a shield, p. 33, though if you look at Spence’s discussion of
Greek cavalry’s arms and equipment generally, there seems to be a fair degree of latitude to what the individual
trooper chose to equip themselves with, pp. 49 – 65.)
106
Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 29.
107
For supplies or plunder.
108
Presumably depending on whether it is the cavalry’s enemy or their own army that was broken.
109
Brunt 1, p. Lxxx.
110
Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 31, see also pp. 59 - 60.
111
Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 57.
112
Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 31.

20
 And it is in just such a role that we find the Greek allied cavalry placed in Alexander’s
battle lines, not to attack his enemies, but to help defend the line of his heavy infantry from an
attempt by the opposing army to strike his phalanx in its vulnerable sides or rear. Circumstances
that never really arose in his battles against the Persians, which is why we hear so little of the
Allied cavalry in our surviving sources.
The Thracians, including the Odryssians,113 were also light cavalry – “javelin-armed
skirmishers”.114 Like the Greek cavalry who probably modelled themselves on the Thracians,
they were normally armed with “two cornel-wood javelins”,115 and a sword. While they wore no
armour, at least some of them may have worn a pelte shield strapped to their backs” as a defence
“against attacks from the rear”.116 Both Webber and Ashley also assert that the Thracian’s
fought in a wedge formation117 – a formation Webber claims they learnt from the Skythians,
which was later adopted by the Macedonians.118 Webber further claims that this formation made
a charge more effective, but offers no example to demonstrate this.119 If so, given the arms they
bore, this can only have been a charge up to the enemy to halt and hurl their first javelins. The
wedge formation, to a foe unfamiliar with it, may well have been a further intimidation to their
opponents. If the enemy broke, the wedge formation could then be used to advantage to charge
down their fleeing opponents as they stabbed at them with their remaining javelins, or slashed at
them with their swords. But, in our accounts of Alexander’s battles, there is no account of
Thracian cavalry charging home into opposing light cavalry or light infantry.
Like the allied cavalry they were placed in Alexander’s battle lines to help defend his
heavy infantry from flank and rear attacks. Which is why we hear so little of the their role in our
surviving sources.
The same can be said for the Thessalian cavalry who were placed on the far left flank of
Alexander’s battle line. Strootman regards the Thessalians as heavy cavalry,120 but Strootman
also makes it clear that he equates heavy cavalry with units that operate in a close formation.
The only basis for this presumption that the Thessalians fought in a close formation is the
Tactics of Asclepiodotus that reported that the Thessalians used a rhomboid formation.121
The similarity between the formations of the Companion and Thessalian squadrons, could
be taken to imply that the Thessalians had the capacity to perform an offensive role similar to
that of the Companions. This does not necessarily follow. Even in the slow ‘charge’ that I have
suggested, such a formation would be of value in breaking up the formation of opposing enemy
113
Arrian refers to the Odrysians as a separate unit only once; Arrian III. 12. 4. The reference just gives their place
in the left wing of Alexander’s battle line at Gaugamela. Marsden, Campaign of Gaugamela, pp.71 – 73,
apparently from ethnic associations with the Paeonians, argued that they consisted of two squadrons of 171 men
each drawn up in a wedge formation. In my original thesis I accepted this interpretation for convenience in
diagramming Alexander’s battle line at Gaugamela. The fact that we hear no more of them after their place in the
battle line has been assigned, I felt, argued that further consideration is unnecessary. Marsden regarded the
Paeonians as light cavalry, which I believe is the appropriate designation for the Odryssian cavalry. That they
fought in a wedge formation is, I believe, quite unlikely. The wedge formation was, I consider, a specific
innovation for Philip’s and Alexander’s heavy cavalry, as shall be discussed below.
114
Webber, Christopher, The Thracians 700 BC – AD 46, Oxford, Osprey, 2001, p. 35. Webber, Christopher,
“Odrysian Cavalry Arms, Equipment, and Tactics”, Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast
Europe, (edit. Lolita Nikolova), J. and E. Hedges, 2003, Chapter. 45, p. 530 (pp. 529 – 544).
115
Presumably using one, like the Greeks discussed above, for throwing, while holding on to the other for close
combat.
116
Webber, The Thracians, p. 35.
117
Webber, The Thracians, p. 41, Ashley, The Macedonian Empire, p. 34.
118
A not unreasonable claim, but not one I can address at this time.
119
Webber, The Thracians, p. 41.
120
Strootman, Rolf, “Alexander’s Thessalian Cavalry”, TALANTA XLII – XLIII (2010 – 2011), pp. 56, 62.
121
Asclepiodotus 7.2.

21
units, especially those in line or rectangular formations. A diamond formation also has the
advantage that it has no distinct flanks, and is therefore vulnerable only to attacks from the rear.
Moreover, a line of such squadrons, even if stationary, would tend to break up the line of an
attacking enemy while maintaining the integrity of each squadron (of Thessalians). This is
because there would be a natural tendency for the attackers to funnel in to the narrowing gap
between any two squadrons. In that position, and disrupted, they would be subject to attack by
the men of both adjacent squadrons.122
Now there are some aspects to this cavalry that could be used to support this claim. In
particular, there is the claim that they wore armour similar to the Companions. This is a moot
point. Ashley has them wearing helmets and breastplates,123 while Strongman suggests “linen
cuirasses124 helmets, pteruges, and greaves”, with bronze armour and shields the exception.125
This is both more likely, and consistent with the equipment of the allied and Thracian cavalries,
where the use of metal armour was confined to the nobility and those who could afford it.
Strootman acknowledges as much. He also makes it clear that his conclusions are inferred more
from the ‘heavy’, as he sees it, Persian cavalry the Thessalians fought, together with the
evidence from two artistic representations, the Alexander Mosaic and the Alexander
Sarcophagus in Istanbul. In this respect I think Strootman is probably right about the armour
issue, despite the lack of literary corroboration. But not on the other grounds for his
conclusions.
And that they fought in a rhomboid formation that would have been “highly manoeuvrable
... able to turn in any one of four directions and still conduct a wedge attack”.126 This, according
to Ashley, meant they were “well adapted for breaking an enemy line, as the best cavalrymen
could be concentrated at the spearhead of the penetration”.127 Strootman also sees the rhomboid
formation as evidence that the Thessalian cavalry coughing close order.128 But this completely
overlooks the implications of Asclepiodotus’ account of how the cavalry was so manoeuvrable it
could turn in the direction of any of the four points of the rhombus. To do that, the horses would
have to be in open order, with room enough on every side for each horse to be able to turn in any
direction. You cannot do that in close order because the gap between the horses is too small.
Fighting in open order is a standard tactic of both light infantry and light cavalry as this reduces
the vulnerability of individual troops to incoming projectiles.
Also, like the Greek and Thracian cavalry, the Thessalians “carried two six-foot-long
javelins”. And as with Greek and Thracian cavalry, “Usually one javelin was thrown, while the
other was retained as a hand-held weapon ... (together with) a curved slashing-sword”.129
Put simply, their style of combat was exactly the same as that of the Greek and Thracian
light cavalry.

122
This part of the discussion was originally included in the heavy cavalry section, and dealt with the distinction
between the Thessalian cavalry and the Companions there.
123
Ashley, The Macedonian Empire, p. 32.
124
The tunic was made of deliberately stiffened linen designed to function as a non-metallic corslet (in place of a
leather one). This cuirass “is split below the waist into strips called pteruges ... for ease of movement ... (with) a
second layer ... fixed inside the first”. Duncan Head, Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, War games
Research Group Publication, 2016, p.198.
125
Strootman, “Thessalian Cavalry”, p. 62.
126
Ashley, The Macedonian Empire, p. 32.
127
Ashley, The Macedonian Empire, p. 32.
128
Strootman, “Thessalian Cavalry”, p. 62.
129
Ashley, The Macedonian Empire, p. 32.

22
 Ashley makes a point of stressing that the Thessalian cavalry were never broken by the
Persian cavalry.130 But since, as I will argue, the Persian cavalry were also light cavalry, this
simply means that the Thessalians were the better light cavalry.
The first that we hear of mounted archers in Alexander’s army is in the account of his
march against the Aspasians.131 At this point, Arrian states that Alexander had with him half of
the mounted archers, which implies that there were at least two units of them.
At the Hydaspes, these mounted archers were used by Alexander as a preliminary assault
force. Their function was to disorder the Indian cavalry on the Indian’s left wing, so that they
would be less able to stand against the charge of Alexander’s Companions and supporting
units.132
The way in which these archers were expected to achieve this goal, was by “the severity of
the volleys of arrows and the charge of the cavalry”.133 The charge referred to, though, should
not be regarded as one which actually brought them into contact the enemy. Rather, the ‘charge'
should be regarded as a feint, meant to deceive the enemy into thinking that they were being
charged at so that they would either brace themselves to receive the charge, or counter charge. If
they counter-charged and then had to stop because the enemy had turned and fled, there would
have to be an interval between when they stopped and when the ranks were reformed. During
that time they would be disordered and vulnerable.
Even if they did not counter-charge, the arrows and the reaction that the charge induced,
would be bound to have some disordering effect. The mounted archers, then, can then be seen as
having performed a role similar to that of the light infantry.
Light cavalry would also have had an important role to play in defending heavy cavalry
from other light cavalry hit and run attacks.
The number of mounted archers that Alexander had with him at the battle of the Hydaspes,
is recorded in Arrian as 1,000.134 This was probably a single unit. I am prompted to say this
from a consideration of Persian cavalry units both as a point of comparison, and because a
number of these units would be later incorporated into Alexander’s own forces. So at this point,
because of its relevance both for the present subject, and to subsequent chapters, it will be
helpful to briefly examine the subject of Persian cavalry organisation.

130
Ashley, The Macedonian Empire, p. 32.
131
Arrian IV. 24. 1.
132
i.e. the Bactrianian, Sogdianian and Scythian cavalry. Arrian V. 12. 2.
133
Arrian V. 16. 4.
134
Arrian V. 16. 4.

23

View publication stats