The world's leading conquerors : $b Alexander the Great, Cæsar, Charles the Great, the Ottoman sultans, the Spanish conquistadors, NapoleonBevan, Wilson Lloyd
History
The world's leading conquerors : $b Alexander the Great, Cæsar, Charles the Great, the Ottoman sultans, the Spanish conquistadors, Napoleon
Bevan, Wilson Lloyd
History; Kings and rulers
Macedonia was peopled by peasants and herdsmen, and up to Philip’s time
they were an untrained mass, insufficiently armed, not able to contend
with the armies of the rest of Greece. There was a landed aristocracy
in Macedon, forming a special warrior class, who fought as cavalry.
Using these elements and adding to them Greek mercenaries, King Philip
had created a military force far superior to any that Greece had ever
seen before.
The Greek cavalry moved in loose formation, the horsemen wore armor,
and as arms they had a shield, sword, and spear, the spear being used
rather for throwing than for striking, as is the case with the modern
lance, with the whole momentum of the moving mass, man and horse.
The troops of the Macedonian cavalry, formed of the nobles of the
land, were called the followers of the king, “Hetairoi.” They bore a
shield and a spear for casting or thrusting, and a sword, and were
always given a crucial position in an engagement. As contrasted with
Greek cavalry generally, the Macedonians showed superior training
and discipline; they moved together and behaved in a fight, not as
individual warriors, but as tactical units, and were controlled in
their movements by a single will. Such development of cavalry was
unfamiliar to the Greek republics, which confined themselves to the
technical training of the phalanx.
The Macedonian foot were the special creation of Philip, and were
named by him “the followers on foot.” They fought in the ordinary
phalanx formation, but closer together than was usual, and used long
spears, so that several lines were enabled at once to engage in actual
hand-to-hand fighting. The spear was so constructed as to weight,
thickness, and length that it could reach the opposing line and yet
be firmly grasped. The ordinary spear was somewhat over six feet in
length, but the Macedonian phalanx depended for its success not so much
on man-to-man fighting as on the irresistible impact of the whole. When
it was acting on the defensive, it was virtually impenetrable. Its
disadvantage was in its lack of individual initiative; the soldiers
were machines rather than fighting men. It was heavy in its movements
and could be thrown into disorder more easily than the older Greek
phalanx with its looser formation. The élite corps, the hypaspists,
were more lightly armed than the men in the phalanx, and so moved more
freely. In Alexander’s battles they were the connecting link between
the cavalry and heavy mass of the phalanx, which advanced slowly
forward. As managed by Alexander, these various arms seem to have
worked admirably together, all sharing in the activity of a general
offensive movement. It should be added that Alexander was also indebted
to his father for much of the advance made in the art of besieging. He
constantly used siege engines, and we have noticed how much he depended
on their successful employment at Tyre and Halicarnassus.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account