That hammer is too small for this anvil.

[Brennus]

Can anyone please answer this for me....

As everyone knows the sucess of Alexander was due to a large degree on the sucess of the Hammer (Heavy Cavalry) and Anvil (Phalanx) combination he employed in his campaigns. The subsequent failure of the Phalanx to defeat Rome's legions was due to a lack of cavalry to support the phalanx, thus the phalanx was forced to act more as a driving force rather than a static barrier, a role for which it was never really designed.

My question is why was there such a lack of heavy cavalry in late Hellenistic armies that the phalanx was forced to act independently? Is it because the phalanxes as Magnesia and Raphia were so large that insufficient horses could be acquired to support them? Was there always a lack of heavy cavalry and that it was only by the luck of being the sole Macedonian ruler than Alexander could concentrate what little cavalry existed into his army? Or was there still sufficent heavy cavalry for late Hellenistc armies to use, they just failed to utilise it correctly?

Thanks in advance!

[athanaric]

Money.

[Arjos]

I think that it was because the phalanx was so effective against the cavalry, and it developed a pattern in the hellenistic armies where the side with more phalangites usually won...

[Brennus]

Money.

Really? I find that hard to believe considering the size of the AS and the wealth the Ptolies would have had from grain revenues.

[athanaric]

Well that was only a suggestion. War is costly. Another reason might be the lack of appropriately trained men due to heavy casualties (remember, heavy cavalry was recruited from higher strata of society, so heavy losses hit you extra hard there) or due to applicants having the wrong ethnicity or whatever.

[Ca Putt]

afaik it was due to lack of noblemen.

[bobbin]

Can anyone please answer this for me....

As everyone knows the sucess of Alexander was due to a large degree on the sucess of the Hammer (Heavy Cavalry) and Anvil (Phalanx) combination he employed in his campaigns. The subsequent failure of the Phalanx to defeat Rome's legions was due to a lack of cavalry to support the phalanx, thus the phalanx was forced to act more as a driving force rather than a static barrier, a role for which it was never really designed.

My question is why was there such a lack of heavy cavalry in late Hellenistic armies that the phalanx was forced to act independently? Is it because the phalanxes as Magnesia and Raphia were so large that insufficient horses could be acquired to support them? Was there always a lack of heavy cavalry and that it was only by the luck of being the sole Macedonian ruler than Alexander could concentrate what little cavalry existed into his army? Or was there still sufficent heavy cavalry for late Hellenistc armies to use, they just failed to utilise it correctly?

Thanks in advance!

Erosion of the Klerouchoi system (Ptolemies), lack of manpower and wealth (Makedonia) and misuse of the force (Seleukids & Makedonia) AFAIK.

The Seleukids in particular had a large cavalry force, Magnesia could have turned out very differently if Antiochos III had been more disciplined and not rushed off with the entire right wing of his cavalry to attack the enemy camp (after completely rouing the opposite roman infantry, mind you), while the battle was still to really start.

Pydna could have also gone differently had Perseus actually used his cavalry, although the war would probably still have reached the same conclusion.

[Fluvius Camillus]

After the major sucessors lost the remnants of Alexander's hetairoi, it seemed very hard to replace them. For some time the Seleukids pulled the cash needed to fund the training of the hetairoi from their gigantic empire, but after it weakened it also died out.

It was of course very expensive to:
- Find these upper class men with the strength and determination
- Find the strong horses who are capable of performing these maneuvres.
- Pay for the making of the equipment for both horse and rider.
- Fund the training and upkeep cost for such a unit to remain large enough to be an effective arm on the battlefield.

This uses massive resources, and when the major diadochii were in decline it became harder and harder to outfit these men.

~Fluvius

[Noble Wrath]

Just a thought: could the reason be (at least partly) that as time passed the estates were concentrated in the hands of progressively fewer landowners, who would be the main candidates for heavy cavalry? I cannot back it up with any historical evidence, I'm just making a comparison with what happened in the late Roman Republic and also in Sparta during the hellenistic era. In both examples this social/economic process lead to difficulties in recruiting heavy infantry. Essentially I am repeating what Ca Putt said: lack of noblemen.

[NoHelmet]

I guess that every reason that leads to an erosion of one's infantry, can be applied to one's cavalry force, as it is much more succeptible (is it written that way?) to drastic changes of sircumstances within the state. Not to mention that it requires a strong tradition that takes only one skipped generation to be lost. Take example of Hungarians, who once used horse archer tactics themselves up to 11th century, only to fully convert to feudal tactics in the 13th, when the Mongols came and refreshed their memory.

[Cute Wolf]

I guess that every reason that leads to an erosion of one's infantry, can be applied to one's cavalry force, as it is much more succeptible (is it written that way?) to drastic changes of sircumstances within the state. Not to mention that it requires a strong tradition that takes only one skipped generation to be lost. Take example of Hungarians, who once used horse archer tactics themselves up to 11th century, only to fully convert to feudal tactics in the 13th, when the Mongols came and refreshed their memory.

Yeah, the "TRADITION" is the key...
what is more appealing than just merely stand in the phalanx and let their enemies impale themselves? it was certainly better job for cowards who are too affraid to grip their lance, shake the rein, and charge directly to a formation full of angry Galatians (or Romans)

[vartan]

Really? I find that hard to believe considering the size of the AS and the wealth the Ptolies would have had from grain revenues.
There is no single reason, and as with almost anything, the explanation is almost invariably a complex one. Yet the one thing you can almost always count on throughout history to alter the results of warfare is money. And even the causes of warfare. Money not just in terms of gold and silver but also encompassing resources. These invariably play no doubt one of the largest roles in warfare, ancient and modern. A disturbing truth indeed.

[abou]

Two things:

1. That's what she said!
2. I discuss the problem of cavalry in a footnote in a blog post of mine: http://abou.heliologue.com/2010/08/03/why-i-hate-the-way-history-is-presented-on-tv/ . This is a cursory overview. If I had more time I'd go more in depth. Basic summary is economics and the exhaustion of the equestrian class.

[NoHelmet]

it was certainly better job for cowards who are too affraid to grip their lance, shake the rein, and charge directly to a formation full of angry Galatians (or Romans)
And that is why majority of almost every sedentary civilization's army were infantrymen, not because they were cowards, but because they were ordinary men. Cavalry required extensive training and resources. Do not judge too harshly on "mere infantrymen", no one knows how we would behave in a pitched battle. Cowardice in battle is one of the more usual human traits (though it can be negated, i guess, by training and experience). Oh, and i think that Vartan pretty much gave the answer. First thing back in high school our history teacher gave us was that every war was about the money, every one, no matter how well concealed behind ideals, popular revolt or just causes.

[Lazy O]

And it takes 13 posts just to confirm the first one :)

[vartan]

And it takes 13 posts just to confirm the first one :)
And that's why the Guild rocks. Hell to the ya. Show me all that monnneyyyyy mawahahah

[Brennus]

And that's why the Guild rocks. Hell to the ya. Show me all that monnneyyyyy mawahahah

No, you would just use it to fund a massive Hai army which could threaten by beloved Keltoi.

Thank you for the answers everyone btw!