Some Curiosities of Ancient Warfare

R. F. Glover

doi:10.1017/S0017383500010731

Some Curiosities of Ancient Warfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009

R. F. Glover

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

We are often told nowadays that the whole business of war, especially command and administration, is becoming increasingly difficult and complicated as more and more different weapons, each more highly specialized than the last, are brought into service. But the undoubted truth of this contention must not lead us into the error of supposing that ancient warfare was a simple matter between forces composed of nothing but infantry and cavalry. Many of the battles of antiquity, indeed, are made more interesting by the presence of unusual and intriguing armaments; and though some of these may now seem largely obsolete, it does not do to be too sure—was not the Home Guard armed with pikes in its early infancy?

Let us consider, then, the parade state of Antiochus’ army at the battle of Magnesia. After his defeat at Thermopylae in April 191, it will be remembered, he had fled to Ephesus, and by the end of the following year he was ready for the Scipios with an army of 70,000 men. ‘Most of the peoples of the Empire were represented, from Dahae horse-archers of the Caspian to Arabs mounted on dromedaries. It was strong in cavalry—at least 12,000 horse, light or “cataphract”—in light-armed infantry … archers, slingers and javelin men; it included, besides 54 elephants, that engine of war dear to the Ancient East, the dreaded scythed-chariots.’

Here, surely, is a sufficiently varied assortment of nationalities and armaments to show that manifold alliances and specialized equipments are not peculiar to the twentieth century.

Type: Research Article
Information: Greece & Rome , Volume 19 , Issue 55 , January 1950 , pp. 1 - 9

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383500010731 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 1 note 1} Cambridge Ancient History, vol. viii, p. 223.Google Scholar See Livy xxxvii. 40; Florus ii. 8. 3871–55

^{page 2 note 1} This summary of the cataphract is based on Rattenbury, R. M. illuminating study of ‘An Ancient Armoured Force’ in Classical Review, vol. lvi, no. 3 (Nov.. 1942), p. 113CrossRef Google Scholar; and some account of the elephant in ancient warfare appeared in Greece and Rome, vol. xvii, no. 49 (Jan. 1948).Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 2} Curtius Rufus iv. 9.

^{page 2 note 3} Crassus 27.

^{page 3 note 1} Vegetius, , De Re Militari iii.Google Scholar 23, adds that nets were often used to capture cataphracts.

^{page 3 note 2} I am grateful to the Rev. J. B. Sandeman for calling my attention to this quip of Ambrose (de Officiis i. 40) on 1 Maccabees vi. 43–6.

^{page 3 note 3} Appian, , Iberica 46.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 4} Herodotus i. 80, vii. 87; Pliny, , Nat. Hist. VIII. xxvi. 67–8Google Scholar; Xenophon, , Cyropaedia vii. i. 27, 48–9.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 5} Cited by Glover, T. R. in From Pericles to Philip, p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 6} Vegetius, loc. cit.; Pliny, loc. cit.

^{page 3 note 7} Animal Management 1933 (London, H.M. Stationery Office, 1938), p. 294Google Scholar; ‘if made to kneel [under fire] he will remain so, perfectly quiet and contented’.

^{page 3 note 8} Ibid., p. 286.

^{page 4 note 9} See the Old Testament, passim. (Modern readers unfamiliar with this work may refer to Cruden's Concordance under ‘Camel’.)

^{page 4 note 1} General Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum, p. 129. However, the camel found now in the Egyptian Delta is big, soft, and of no use in the desert. (Animal Management, pp. 286–7.)

^{page 4 note 2} Op. cit. vi. i. 30, ii. 8; vii. i. 27–8, 48–9.

^{page 4 note 3} Animal Management, p. 290. A camel weighs 1,500–1,600 lb. (ibid., p. 300).

^{page 4 note 4} Herodotus vii. 86. Have we here a hint of the modern distinction between riding-camels and baggagers? There was nothing remarkable about the camels in Xerxes' supply column (c. 83), but those carrying the Arab infantry were . (Cf. Animal Management, p. 303: ‘the riding camel is as distinct from the baggage animal as a thoroughbred from a cart-horse’.)

^{page 4 note 5} Livy xxxvii. 40. 12.

^{page 4 note 6} Cf. Xenophon, , Hellenica iii. iv. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 7} Animal Management, pp. 286–7, 295.

^{page 5 note 1} Ibid., pp. 296 ff.

^{page 5 note2} Ibid., p. 286.

^{page 5 note 3} Ibid., p. 300.

^{page 5 note 4} Ibid., p. 293.

^{page 5 note 5} Op. cit. iii. 23.

^{page 5 note 6} Cyropaedia VI. i. 27–30.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 7} Later descriptions differ only in detail. Diodorus (xvii. 53), Curtius Rufus (iv. 9), and Livy (xxxvii. 41) add further spikes or blades of varying length (respectively ξύστρα τρισπἱθαμα hastae, cuspides) projecting horizontally from the end of the pole. Do these represent, however inaccurately, a later development of Cyrus’ vehicle, or merely an attempt at ‘artistic verisimilitude’?

^{page 5 note 8} See Diodorus, loc. cit., πρòς κατάπληξιν καì φόβον τν πολεμίων εΦετέως ἐπινενοημένα and Frontinus, Strat. II. iii. 17, ad perturbandum hostem. But they seldom seem to have made much impression.

^{page 5 note 9} iii. 642 ff.

^{page 5 note 10} iv. 15: ‘Quippe amputata virorum membra humi iacebant; et quia calidis adhuc vulneribus aberat dolor, trunci quoque et debiles arma non omittebant, donec multo sanguine effuso exanimati procumberent.’

^{page 6 note 1} Xenophon, , Cyropaedia vii. i. 27.Google Scholar But Herodotus' account (i. 80 ff.) makes no mention of chariots.

^{page 6 note 2} Even so, they rallied sufficiently to get the better of a follow-up force of Persian infantry, and were not finally overcome until Cyrus in person attacked them from the rear. (Xenophon, , op. cit. vii. i. 29–37).Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 3} Ibid. vII. i. 47.

^{page 6 note 4} Hellenica IV. i. 17–19.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 5} See especially Plutarch, Sulla xviii. 3.

^{page 6 note 6} Diodorus' use of the word σεiρoφóρoς at xvii. 53 implies that the scythechariot was drawn by four horses.

^{page 6 note 7} At Gaugamela, Darius’ chariots advanced with slack reins (Curtius Rufus iv. 15).

^{page 7 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 7 note 2} Plutarch, loc. cit. Cf. Vegetius, , op. cit. iii. 24Google Scholar, ‘quadrigas falcatas rex Antiochus et Mithradates habuerunt… postmodum fuere derisui’.

^{page 7 note 3} Frontinus, loc. cit. He adds (sec. 18) that Caesar used the same method against Gaulish scythe-chariots.

^{page 7 note 4} Vegetius, loc. cit.

^{page 7 note 5} 2 Maccabees xiii. 1–17.

^{page 7 note 6} Xenophon, , Anabasis I. viii. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 7} Diodorus xvii. 58.

^{page 7 note 8} Frontinus, loc. cit.

^{page 8 note 1} Arrian, , Anabasis III. xiii. 5–6.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} Curtius Rufus, loc. cit.

^{page 8 note 3} Collingwood, and Myres, , Roman Britain and the English Settlements, p. 41.Google Scholar Among generally accessible ancient authors the only reference to Celtic scythechariots is Frontinus, loc. cit.

^{page 8 note 4} Aristotle, , H.A. viii. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 5} Cf. Diodorus xx. 73.

^{page 9 note 1} Cambridge Ancient History, loc. cit.

Article contents

Some Curiosities of Ancient Warfare

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests