Читать книгу A Companion to Greek Warfare - Группа авторов - Страница 50

1 1 Anson 2013, 24–25. See also Carlier 2000.

2 2 Anson 2008b, 17–30.

3 3 Theophrastus (Hist. Pl. 3.12.2) gives the length of the longest Macedonian sarissa as 18 feet and Asclepiodotus (Tact. 5.1) confirms by stating that the shortest Macedonian pike was 15 feet and that the longest was not more than 18 feet. These different lengths may be the result of using longer sarassai in later ranks so as to extend the number of spear points that protruded before the front rank (Asclepiod. Tact. 5.2). Arrian (Tact. 12.7) gives the length of the sarissa as 16 feet.

4 4 Machiavelli 1965, 47.

5 5 Anson 2010b.

6 6 Anson 2010b, 65–66.

7 7 Markle 1978, 491–492; Anson 1985a, 247–248; Anson 2010a, 63 and n. 88; Anson 2013, 50.

8 8 Anson 2010a, 81–90.

9 9 Worley 1994, 157.

10 10 Later during the Antigonid dynasty of Macedonian rulers, peltast came to refer to the heavy infantry, pike bearers, of the phalanx. The change in definition in Macedonia came from the pelta, the small round shields carried by the members of the phalanx (Juhel and Sekunda 2009, 107).

11 11 See, however, Heckel, Willekes, and Wrightson 2010.

12 12 On the battle see Diod. Sic. 16.86; Polyaen. 4.2.2, 7; Frontin. Strat. 2.1.9; cf. Plut. Alex. 9.2; Arr. Tact. 16.6–7.

13 13 Markle 1977, 323, 329; Heckel and Ryan 2006, 63–64; Anson 2010a, 82.

14 14 Markle 1978, 490–491; Anson 2017.

15 15 See Worley 1994, 160; Willekes 2013, 300 with n. 496, 319.

16 16 In the contest in 326/325 between the Athenian wrestler armed with only a club and wearing no body armor and the Macedonian phalangite fully equipped, the latter proved no match for the former (Diod. Sic. 17.100.2–101.2, Curt. 9.7.16–23).

17 17 Hammond, 1980a, 53.

18 18 While this is the estimate found in most modern accounts, Bosworth (1988, 57) is correct that “it is impossible to give even an educated guess.”

19 19 Arr. Anab. 2.10.3; Diod. Sic. 17.33.5, 34.2.

20 20 Diod. Sic. 19.42.3, 43.8–9; Polyaen. 4.6.13; Plut. Eum. 16.10–11, 17.2–4; Just. 14.3.3, 12.

21 21 See also Chapter 15 in this volume.

22 22 Recently Charles 2008, 9.

23 23 Kistler 2007, 20.

24 24 For a discussion of the controversial chronology, see Anson 2014, 116–121.

25 25 See Anson 2015, 191 n. 73.

26 26 See Anson 2015, 191 n. 74.

27 27 Anson 2015, 191.

28 28 Olbrycht 2013, 159–178.

29 29 Anson 1988, 131–133.

30 30 In the later Battle of Gabene, the Argyraspids overwhelmed Antigonus’ phalanx and, when subsequently exposed to cavalry attack, were able to form a square and successfully retreat (Diod. Sic. 19.43.1, 4–5). Unlikethe Spartan experience at the Battle of Lechaeum in 391 where an unsupported hoplite regiment was attacked by light-armed troops and 250 of them were killed (Xen. Hell. 4.5.13–18), a pike-bearing phalanx during the Battle of Magnesia in 190 faced with similar circumstances formed a square and the long pikes deflected the projectiles and kept the phalangites reasonably safe (App. Syr. 6.35).

31 31 These were perhaps originally associated with the city of Tarentum, but over time the term came to be applied generally to any javelin-armed cavalrymen.

32 32 The 3,000 Achaeans are described as “picked.” Moreover, Polybius (2.65.2) records the presence of peltasts, Agrianians, and Gauls, which suggests that Polybius is being precise in his differentiation.

33 33 On cataphracts and their armor, see James 2004, 110–113, 129–131, and Chapter 14 in this volume.

34 34 Some light infantry units are not clearly differentiated.

35 35 These Ptolemaic peltasts are not to be confused with peltasts of the Classical Age who were light-armed troops, most often armed with javelins. In the Antigonid army, the peltasts were the elite of the phalanx (Walbank 1957–1979, 1.274, 390).

36 36 The difficulty is that if the 25,000 figure represents an additional force of sarissai bearers, they are not specifically noted in Polybius’ delineation of the Ptolemaic forces at the actual battle. If the 25,000 phalangites include the 20,000 Egyptians and represent a total of these and the Libyans and perhaps another 2,000 others, the math works, but does not coincide with Polybius’ overall total of 70,000 infantry. The 70,000 figure is likely accurate. In the actual battle it is the charge of the phalanx troops under the command Andromachus and Sosibius that carries the day. The unspecified 25,000 are earlier listed under the command of Andromachus (Polyb. 5.65.3) and the 20,000 Egyptians under that of Sosibius (Polyb. 5.65.10).

37 37 Polybius also states that the Indian elephants were intimidating because of their greater size and strength. It is now generally conceded that this was a myth and that the African elephants likely used by Ptolemy were from Eritrea. These are large “savanna” elephants and consequently larger than their Indian counterparts (Brandt 2014, 82–90).

38 38 For a modern detailed account of this battle, see Bar-Kochva 1976, 132–137.

39 39 Appian (Syr. 6.32) relates that there were 22 elephants on the flanks of each section.

40 40 Livy states that Antiochus had 54 elephants (Liv. 39.37.13), with both wings having 16 and 18 interspersed in the phalanx, there are two missing. These may be on either end of the phalanx.

41 41 Appian (Syr. 6.32) calls these troops cavalry. While their positioning far on the right wing might appear peculiar, Livy (37.40.7) is clear that these are infantry (Briscoe 1981, 349).

42 42 Hippotoxotai. Appian (Syr. 6.32) records 200 Dahae.

43 43 Cytaea was a town on the Caspian Sea.

44 44 Elymais was a region located near the Persian Gulf.

45 45 Appian records 30,000, Livy gives no total, the units identified in Livy add up to 29,000.

46 46 Appian (Syr. 6.31) says that the Romans occupied the right with the Latins on their left, but Livy’s account of the battle makes this impossible.

47 47 These were apparently peltasts in the traditional sense. The unit included the Achaean Caetrati who were armed with “slings, javelins, and other light ordinance” (Liv. 31.36.1, 35.27.5).

48 48 See Briscoe 1981, 347–348.

49 49 Liv. 39.37; App. Syr. 6.31.

50 50 These were apparently the much-maligned African elephants (Liv. 39.37.13).

51 51 Harl (2008, 260) states that Antiochus’ charge came after the extensive Roman attack on the phalanx, but Livy’s account divides the action into three theaters: front, left, and right. Therefore, even though Antiochus’ charge on the right wing is placed after the Roman infantry attack, it likely occurred at the same time as that of the chariots and light cavalry on the left. Justin (31.8.6) has the Antiochean force routing the Roman legion on the right wing. This is accepted by Bar-Kochva (1976, 170), but rejected by Harl.

52 52 App. Syr. 6.33; Liv. 37.41.10–11.

53 53 In 149 a pretender to the Macedonian throne, claiming to be the son of the last king, raised a brief revolt against Roman authority. He was defeated in 148 in a second Battle of Pydna.

54 54 Liv. 42.51.3; cf. Plut. Aem. 13.3.

55 55 According to Frontinus this was the result of the deliberate strategy of the Roman commander to lure the Macedonians onto broken ground.