pre alexander's macedonians

Dareun · Post by **Dareun** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:29 am

I'm reading back the thucydid's peloponnesian wars.
At the early stage (Athenes VS Corynthe near Potidea) we got Perdiccas king of Macedonia as ally on both side (well...) bringing cavalrymen.

How do we treat it? as classical greek ally thessalian? What's your proposal?

(it is not because they didnt actually fight during the big battle that they were not part of the army

)

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:41 pm

I think you can put in a BG of Companion like troops, because it's not credible they developed a similar troop types in less than 100 years. You can classify them just average to represent they are at a lesser stage of development (I mean not so good as Companion at Alexander's era). Anyway they was nobles and their presence was often tied to king's presence. Other them, Thessalian like cavalry is always a good choice.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:46 pm

Eh? I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but your argument is certainly questionable

Firstly, history is full of examples of new troop/weapon types appearing quite suddenly in a particular army. (And I would dispute that 100 years is a short time for technological and social changes, even in the Ancient world.) I would say it is simply not credible that all such big changes in armament or fighting style are a result of gradual changes over an extended period of time, changes so gradual that there is never a point at which an observer would notice a sudden complete change of fighting style or capability.

And purely from a logical perspective...let's say your argument is accepted as demonstrating they must have had companion-like cavalry 100 years before the Alexandrian start date. Now you can argue again that they could not possibly have developed such cavalry within only 100 years, so in fact they must have had them 200 years before the start of the Alexandrian list. Etc. Etc. Etc.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:23 am

ShrubMiK wrote:Eh? I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but your argument is certainly questionable

Of course all arguments which origin from deduction and not from historical evidences are questionable. But the key is not how many time you need to develop a new troop/weapon types, which could happen from the evening to the morning (sorry, English literal translation from an Italian idiom). What I really mean is, and that was implied, it's not believable they had could obtain a such result in so few years. Companions in Alexander's era were one of the best cavalry of the ancient world and you cannot field a such unit without the experience of at least some generation.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:42 am

marioslaz wrote: Companions in Alexander's era were one of the best cavalry of the ancient world and you cannot field a such unit without the experience of at least some generation.

Perhaps they were so good because they were so new, therefore nobody knew how to counter them.

will05 · Post by **will05** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:44 am

Hi
I base my understanding of this is from A History Of Greece by N.G.L.Hammond which has a good section on the rise of macedonia, but I read it quite a while ago and it is only one source....

I believe it was Phillip that developed that world beating Macedonian army, Alexander then took it further. The companions I believe existed quite a while before this time, and were a good cavalry division made from the lowland nobility. Philip took them and drilled them and crucialy added a strong holding infantry force. One of the most important things that he did was to drill the army.

I would think that they should be Irregular, armoured, superior, light spear (& maybe sword), and would allow no more than 8 to 12 bases. They could be lance armed, but I would tend towards the Thracian heavy cav model.

Hope this helps
Will

jcmedhurst · Post by **jcmedhurst** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:21 pm

I think there is a reasonable amount of evidence that the Companion cavalry as fielded by Phillip II were

a) new and

b) fought in a distinctive manner to previous Macedonian armies, where cavalry do not seem to have had a shock role and often seem to have fought on foot as hoplites - in an army otherwise short of them.

As I recall Phillip recruited new blood into the Macedonian nobility by giving land grants to mercenary adventurers who then developed into the Companion cavalry. I can't think of any pre-Phillip examples of cavalry having the dominant role on the battlefield in a Macedonian army that they did by the time of Phillip's early campaigns. Phillip also relied extensively on mercenaries, so much so that he could fight all year round, in contrast to his opponents who were restricted to the normal campaign season by their citizen-based armies. Phillip also seems largely responsible for the development of the phalanx, turning Macedonian foot from a mixture of a few hoplite types and lots of less well motivated foot into a semi-professional force with training that involved forced marches and other radical innovations for 4th Century BC Greece.

As for new military systems developing quickly I can think of several examples where rapid change occurred - from the Military Revolution in 17th Century Europe to the French Revolution and the levee en masse or even the Blitzkrieg. All of these take place within a single generation, and the new order of things asserts itself really quite quickly - within a few years.

John

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:43 pm

will05 · Post by **will05** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:39 pm

I have had a look at the 'A History of Greece' book and it indicates that the companions cavalry were around at the time of Archelaus (413-399) "who built straight roads and fortified strongholds throughout the land". It says that the "cheife arm was the heavy cavalry led by the king and his companions. The cavalrymen wore cuirasses, had stronger horses than those usually bred in Greece, and showed themselves superior to the Thracian troops in battle".

The expansion of the companions came as Phillip was trying to consolidate the cantons of upper Macedonia, by enrolling young nobles, to be pages at court. He then built permanence by "incorporating some of his conquered territories into Macedonia as king's lands won by the spear and created new Macedonian citizens by granting holdings therein,somtimes to the natives and sometimes to Greeks whom he wished to include in his entourage."

So this says that the Companions was around before the time of Phillip and were expanded by him as the land area of Macedonia was consolidtaed and expanded, in a political move to make that expansion more permanent.

The foot companions were probably formed by Alexander(369-368), son of Amyntas. They appear to have been a heavy infantry hoplite force of citizen militia. Phillip developed this force along the lines of the Theban infantry of Epamonindas. He had been a hostage in Thebes 367-364.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:52 am

I would take that as meaning one BG of 4 superior armoured cav. It doesn't say anything about whether they should be lance or light spear though.

will05 · Post by **will05** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:53 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:I would take that as meaning one BG of 4 superior armoured cav. It doesn't say anything about whether they should be lance or light spear though.

Yeah, I think that is a bit of a problem as they seem to be thought of as better than the Thracians, but because they have stronger horses really. I am not sure about the evolution of the lance. However giving them a lance and sword would make them slightly better than the latter in game terms. There again you could say that slightly better doesn't show through at this scale and just take them the same as Thracians. I think that they ought to be undrilled too.