Hellenistic Greek cavalry

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

What kind of cavalry did the Greek cities and the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues use during the Hellenistic era (say 330 - 200)? What was their equipment and how did they fight? I am specifically interested in Ionian, Athenian, Theban, Thessalian and Peloponessian (Spartan included) cavalry.

[Marshal Murat]

It's mostly light cavalry. While specifics are vague, Thessaly had the best horsemen until Macedon reached pre-eminence amongst city-states with the Companions.

The Athenians, Thebans, Spartans, and other city states used light troops, riding bare-back or on a saddle cloth.
Tunic, Boetian Helmet, usually used to scatter archers (just as rare because of a very poor drawing technique) peltasts, or slingers. Armed with javelins, a short sword, shield.

Hellenistic, they changed it (more postulation here) to a Macedonian Companion style horsemen. However, Thessaly probably still had the best, but the Successors had the best horsemen at the time.

[Watchman]

By what I know of it, there were three main types. The lightest was the hippakontistai pattern - mounted javelin skirmishers, basically. Essentially pure light cavalry, armed with javelins, shields, and whatever light armour they could afford. These guys are probably what most sources call "Tarentinoi".

The next one was a developement of the old hippeis all-purpose cavalry, well-equipped horsemen armed with varying combinations of javelins and dory (the standard Greek fighting-spear, a little over two meters long; the horsemen used it both as a short-range heavy javelins and a shock weapon); already in the Clasical period they might wear as much armour as full "bell" or "muscle" bronze quirasses, and they adopted shields around the beginning of the 3rd century BC. The exact inspiration for that is unknown; Italian influences through Pyrrhus' campaigns are one possibility, Thracian, Scythian and Persian contacts another. The crude but workable "Scythian" saddle may also have been adopted from the Thracians, who are known to have made use of it already around Alexander's time. In any case these guys were jack-of-all trades cavalry, "heavy skirmishers" capable of both hit-and-run work and heavy shock action.

The heaviest type was the Macedonian-pattern xystophoroi lancer, who was a specialist shock-trooper. They may have started using shields later on, and there may have been alterations to their lance techniques due to Eastern influences over time, but for the most part they can be thought of as a less elite version of the Hellenistic Hetairoi. Probably not very common among the peninsular Greeks though.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

Thanks for the info. Does anyone have the number of each type of cavalry Athens, Thebes, Sparta and the two Leagues fielded? Or perhaps a book I can see on this subject?

[conon394]

Does anyone have the number of each type of cavalry Athens, Thebes, Sparta and the two Leagues fielded? Or perhaps a book I can see on this subject?

I G Spence “the Cavalry of Classical Greece” is an excellent book for Hellenic cavalry in the 5th and 4th centuries.

You might also consider Xenophon’s works. Whatever his failing as a historian, Xenophon was a professional and skilled cavalry officer who spent a fair amount of time in the field (you know that whole march up country and all…).

Marshal Murat


It's mostly light cavalry. While specifics are vague, Thessaly had the best horsemen until Macedon reached pre-eminence amongst city-states with the Companions.

The Athenians, Thebans, Spartans, and other city states used light troops, riding bare-back or on a saddle cloth.
Tunic, Boetian Helmet, usually used to scatter archers (just as rare because of a very poor drawing technique) peltasts, or slingers. Armed with javelins, a short sword, shield.

I disagree strongly. Aside from combing the sarissa with the wedge the Macedonian cavalry was no ‘heavier’ than Greek cavalry it just had better reach – nor was Greek cavalry just light. Greek cavalry could do a lot more than scatter archers (a rather pointless goal since almost no Greek states deployed archers…). At Plataea for example the vaunted Persian cavalry did squat, but the Theban cavalry managed to run down the Hoplites of Megara – hardly only light. If you read Xenophon (Anabasis) it is pretty clear he was not a light cavalry man and his recommendations in ‘Hipparchikos’ are hardly for light cavalry.

Watchman


The heaviest type was the Macedonian-pattern xystophoroi lancer, who was a specialist shock-trooper. They may have started using shields later on, and there may have been alterations to their lance techniques due to Eastern influences over time, but for the most part they can be thought of as a less elite version of the Hellenistic Hetairoi. Probably not very common among the peninsular Greeks though.

Calling the Macedonians ‘shock-troopers’ seems like a mistake. They may have been good, and armored and skilled; but they could not execute a shock attacked against decent heavy infantry – anymore than Greek or Thessalian cavalry could. The Thessalinas drove the Macs of the field in every battle of the Lamina war – but neither they nor their defeated rivals could have (or did) overrun the Greek or Macedonian phalanxes (that were not surprised or flanked or disorder, etc.)

[Watchman]

Well, duh. Shock cavalry never did very well in frontal attacks against steady pikes, so the distinction somewhat eludes me.

[conon394]

I guess what I was trying to get at was that in the context of a battle with a typical Hellenic/Hellenistic/Roman/etc army I think using the term ‘shock-trooper’ in conjunction with Macedonian cavalry gives an erroneous impression of their function. They may have played a crucial role but it was still via flanking or surprising otherwise already engaged infantry; not by plowing through them.

In contrast I would say the Theban Sacred Band (for example) were shock troops – they were intended to deliver a rather undisguised frontal crushing blow to the enemy’s best troops.

[Watchman]

Both Alexander's Hetairoi and the earlier and lighter Classical Greek cavalry are known to have on occasion managed to bust right through a heavy infantry line. It's doable; but as always, requires the right circumstances and isn't really something to bet the farm on (although Alex did on at least one instance - but then he was clearly a bit of a gambler). Mulling over this is rather missing the point however, as it is an axiom that cavalry in particular is always far more effective when it can strike the flanks or rear of the enemy formation.

Anyway, of the three Hellenic cavalry types around the xystophoroi were the shock action specialists - it's not like they could really be much else with their kit.

[Kralizec]

I guess what I was trying to get at was that in the context of a battle with a typical Hellenic/Hellenistic/Roman/etc army I think using the term ‘shock-trooper’ in conjunction with Macedonian cavalry gives an erroneous impression of their function. They may have played a crucial role but it was still via flanking or surprising otherwise already engaged infantry; not by plowing through them.

In contrast I would say the Theban Sacred Band (for example) were shock troops – they were intended to deliver a rather undisguised frontal crushing blow to the enemy’s best troops.

Wasn't the normal tactic to place one's best troops at the right end of the phalanx? And causing a "game" where the one who breached through the others left wing first, almost invariably won?

[Reenk Roink]

I G Spence “the Cavalry of Classical Greece” is an excellent book for Hellenic cavalry in the 5th and 4th centuries.

I'd also add Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World by Gaebel.

With those two on hand, you'll know all you ever wanted to know. :boo:

Bryn Mawr Classical Review of Gaebel (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-07-15.html)

[Marquis of Roland]

The cavalry of the classical era were missing two important inventions: the stirrup and an actual saddle (with pommel and cantle). This prevented the rider from using the force of the horse's body behind his impact, as his only leverage to stay on the horse was to grip tightly with his legs around the body of the horse.

The horses themselves were unarmored and a bit small, comparable to steppe ponies moreso than the horses used by European knights later on. Added with the absence of a stirrup and saddle, it drastically lowered the amount of pure "shock" force they were able to deliver. A commander of heavy cavalry at the time would have had to have been more judicious in the way his forces were used against heavy infantry. However, regardless of how lightly armed and armored the cavalry was, we also have to remember that the infantry of that time were equally lightly armed and armored in comparison to later troops. The best use for cavalry of that time was light cavalry as all of the negatives mentioned above would not have had a large impact on light cavalry tactics.

Imagine what it was like as a Roman legionnaire facing stirrup and saddle equipped heavy cavalry with armored barding wielding heavy lances from the East for the first time. :book:

[Watchman]

Stirrups are way overrated. Saddles not quite as badly, but for reasons not immediately apparent. Keep in mind that the Macedonian lancers had neither, and did a sterling job anyway. And they were hardly alone.

The problems cavalry have with steady close-order infantry are actually pretty much built in, and have very little to do with how the horsemen are equipped - because the issue is the relative inviolability of the solid mass of infantrymen the horse will not and cannot run into, as things stand. The cavalry need to have an opening; enough of a gap in the ranks, wavering morale, element of surprise, whatever, so long as it leaves the unmovable obstacle of the infantry open to a shock charge where the speed and mass of the horse and the arms of its rider can make the difference, throw the infantry into chaos and confusion, break their will and formation, and ultimately scatter them into the four winds to be ridden down at will. Or that's the principle anyway.

Many horsemen carried weapons they could use to try to create just such openings - javelins and larger thrown spears being one popular approach (horse-archers tended to prefer stand-off destruction, or "shot in" heavier troops). Cavalry could also exploit their advantage in speed and maneuverability to fairly literally sidestep the problem by working around the solid front of the infantry to assail their flanks and rear, or making a sudden surprise attack before the pedestrians could form up. But it often happened that skirmishing did not do enough damage to reveal a suitable crack, and outflanking was not possible. Then a frontal shock charge was necessary; and the success or failure of one tended to be primarily a matter of psychology, of whose nerve broke first. Could the waiting infantrymen hold steady in the face of a vertiable avalanche of herd animals carrying armed men bearing down on them, making the very ground shake with their thundering hooves ? Or would they give in to panic and begin to waver, distrupting the ranks and weakening the front ? Or break completely and turn to flee even before contact, virtually sealing their fate ? Could the horsemen keep their nerve and hold their collision course towards a wall of men and shields and weapons ? Could they coerce the skittish beast under them to go along with it ? Could or would they press home the charge, or pull short and veer off - to retreat, reform and try again, or mill around in confusion and expose themselves to counterattack ? And if they carried through and the infantry did not oblige to make their lives easier, would their weapons and armour and mounts and skill and courage be up to the task of hacking the pedestrians apart in a grim close-quarters slugging match ?

The last in particular posed a tremendous challenge. Normally only specialist heavy shock cavalry, hideously expensive, even tried; and often even they got a bloody nose in the process. There were differences of course. Massively armoured cataphracts could be expected to out-tough almost anything head on, and were often able to punch holes even in very stubborn heavy infantry lines - but even then it would be by far preferable if the sheer psychological trauma of the massed cavalry charge would do much of the job for them, and the committing of these elite battering rams was normally preceded by extensive "softening up" by missile troops. For all their shock charge power, Medieval European couched-lance knights often found themselves badly mauled by sufficiently stubborn commoners with long pointy things; onve those started becoming disturbingly common on the battlefields they had to revaluate their tactics and gear.

[Marquis of Roland]

Stirrups are way overrated. Saddles not quite as badly, but for reasons not immediately apparent. Keep in mind that the Macedonian lancers had neither, and did a sterling job anyway. And they were hardly alone.

Like I said, the infantry of the time were also underarmed and armored compare to later periods; this probably had a large impact on how effective cavalry with no stirrup or saddles were at the time. And as you've pointed out, the psychological factor also plays a large role (this is true for any era involving cavalry however).

The cataphracts DID have stirrups and saddles, as well as barding and heavy lances.

And I don't know how underrated stirrups and saddles were military-wise, but I tried to ride a horse (without trying to spear anything) once without either stirrup or saddle and it was not fun lol :laugh4:

[MeinPanzer]

Like I said, the infantry of the time were also underarmed and armored compare to later periods; this probably had a large impact on how effective cavalry with no stirrup or saddles were at the time. And as you've pointed out, the psychological factor also plays a large role (this is true for any era involving cavalry however).

The cataphracts DID have stirrups and saddles, as well as barding and heavy lances.

And I don't know how underrated stirrups and saddles were military-wise, but I tried to ride a horse (without trying to spear anything) once without either stirrup or saddle and it was not fun lol :laugh4:

Actually, for about 900 odd years from the debut of the "true" cataphract in the 4th C. amongst the Central Asian nomads they didn't have the stirrup. They did have the saddle from proably around the 3rd C. BC, though.

[conon394]

Wasn't the normal tactic to place one's best troops at the right end of the phalanx? And causing a "game" where the one who breached through the others left wing first, almost invariably won?

That is certainly something of a modern truism, but I don’t see that is much grounding in evidence. Take First Mantinea for example (i.e. one of the better described battles): The best troops on either side were not on the right, the decisive points of the battle was not the victory of one right flank or the other (at least not in the supposed ‘traditional’) the triple alliance plus Athens exploited a gap in the Spartan line and the Spartans likewise won first when their best troops in the center routed the allied center… Placement on the right seemed to be mostly an honorary position for the men fighting close to home at best.


Imagine what it was like as a Roman legionnaire facing stirrup and saddle equipped heavy cavalry with armored barding wielding heavy lances from the East for the first time.

Apparently not too scary/bad since the Romans seem to have defeated Pontus, Armenia, and the Seleucids, all of whom had cataphracts.



Bryn Mawr Classical Review of Gaebel

I have to disagree with the reviewer (G R Bugh) and prefer to views of Gaebel, Rahe and company – Alexander’s glorious cavalry victory at Chaeronea equals modern myth. Bugh is right the sources are slim but I don’t think that fact in turn justifies inventing an otherwise unattested cavalry action for Alexander, why not simply an inconclusive, non-important fight between each sides cavalry. Moreover, Bugh is right Alexander’s latter cavalry victories were famous so if he really did lead a decisive cavalry action against some of the most famous and storied hoplites in the Greek world, it seems rather odd that the action dropped completely out of the sources.

[Kralizec]

Like I said, the infantry of the time were also underarmed and armored compare to later periods; this probably had a large impact on how effective cavalry with no stirrup or saddles were at the time. And as you've pointed out, the psychological factor also plays a large role (this is true for any era involving cavalry however).

Infantry underarmed? I don't see how legionary, hoplite or phalangite equipment is inferior compared to what the rank-and-file fighters of the medieval era used.


That is certainly something of a modern truism, but I don’t see that is much grounding in evidence. Take First Mantinea for example (i.e. one of the better described battles): The best troops on either side were not on the right, the decisive points of the battle was not the victory of one right flank or the other (at least not in the supposed ‘traditional’) the triple alliance plus Athens exploited a gap in the Spartan line and the Spartans likewise won first when their best troops in the center routed the allied center… Placement on the right seemed to be mostly an honorary position for the men fighting close to home at best.

I might be confusing this with another battle, but I thought that the Spartan left flank was overrun but that the allies threw away their victory by chasing the routers instead of envelopping the remainder of the phalanx?

[conon394]

I might be confusing this with another battle, but I thought that the Spartan left flank was overrun but that the allies threw away their victory by chasing the routers instead of envelopping the remainder of the phalanx?

True; but for the Spartan left the key point is that the defeat (in that sector) was precipitated by the gap opened up in the Spartan line by Agis’ panicky maneuver of ordering his left to shift farther left (or perhaps wheel around a bit) and thus separated them from his center. The victory of the anti Spartan group was in essence won at the junction of the left and center.

The Spartan victory (the center and right) was primarily the result of the Spartans + Agis (the Spartan center) easily crushing the allied center which largely fled the field before the armies closed. The Athenians would appear to have been surrounded as a result of Agis' longer line and the collapse of the Argive levy in the center, but the implication of Thucydides 5.74 seems to me to be that the Athenians and their cavalry were still fighting – they would have been defeated eventually being, flanked on two sides – but the Spartan victory was not started by a right flank victory.

Agis the his Guard of 300 is specifically noted as being in the center by Thucydides, and the Argive 1000 are not the rightmost troops – that is best troops were not on the right, and only one side wins on the right and that is at a rather center-ish right. Overall I don’t see much to support the modern view for such a mechanically standardized hoplite battle.
Agis in particular would appear to have been aiming for victory in the center.