Ancient Greece & the Macedonian System

1. Ancient Greece & the Macedonian System

2. Overview • Overview of Military “Systems” • Greek • Persian • Macedonian • Featured Commander: Alexander • Featured Campaign: Alexander’s Persian Campaign • Selected Principles of War Comparison

3. Learning Targets The student will demonstrate knowledge of the Greek, Macedonian, and Persian military systems and their contributions to the art of war. • MH.4 List and describe the advantages and disadvantages of the Greek phalanx. • MH.5 Explain the effect of the physical environment (a strategic constant) on the development of unique Greek and Persian warfighting systems. • MH.6 Evaluate the role of campaign design in Alexander the Great’s successful invasion of Persia. • MH.7 Compare and contrast the relationship between ancient Greek, Persian, and Macedonian systems of war. • MH.8 Evaluate Alexander the Great’s most significant contributions to the art of war.

4. Greek Military System

5. Beginnings of Western War… • Greeks are a good starting point • Military system evolved from simple to complex • Shock action  gradually incorporated missile weapons  then employed both on horses • Methods developed long dominated Mediterranean basin

6. Heavy Infantry • Warrior – Hoplite • Militiamen • Training – poor; few exercises; little ability to drill effectively • Prestige / upper social classes • Equipment • Shields, helmets, breastplates • Heavy  slowed movement • Primary weapon: Spear (7 ft) • Secondary weapon: Short sword • Hoplite bought his own equipment

7. Tactics / Formation – Phalanx • Shock tactics • 8 ranks deep (4 – 50) • Standard for 300+ years • No incentive to change • Not attacked by EN using different techniques • Advantages: • Morale / Psychological • ‘Pushing power’ • Disadvantages: • Difficult to maneuver • Fwd / Back only • Only front rank fights • Cmdr played minimal role once battle began

8. Spartan Contributions to Phalanx • Professional (full time) army • Well-drilled • Marched to music • Developed tactic for maneuver based on phalanx’s natural drift to right (4th century B.C.) • 1st dev – turned right part of formation to left IOT attack EN flank • 2nd dev – detached ‘flanking force’ • Tactic delivered a much greater psychological blow than any physical destruction

10. Light Infantry – Missile (Fires) • Archers • Range: 80-100 yds • Training: high • Equipment cost: low • Carried 15-20 arrows • Fought as an individual – more skill, initiative, morale

11. Light Infantry – Missile (Fires) • Slingers • Range: 100 yds + • Training: very high • Equipment cost: low • Difficult to develop firepower due to dispersion required

12. Light Infantry – Missile (Fires) • Javelin throwers • Range: 20 yds • Training: low • Equipment cost: low • Predominant light infantry force • Good in fighting in cramped areas • Warriors had difficulty carrying more than a few javelins Peltast

13. Light Cavalry (Maneuver) • Training: high • Expensive • Greece offered few pastures • Rugged terrain inhibited cav ops • No stirrup • Difficult to strike from mount • Superior mobility • ATK a flank or rear • Psychological effect • Overall: inferior to infantry

14. Heavy v. Light Infantry • Rule of thumb in ancient Greek world • Hoplites vs Hoplites • Light infantry and cavalry engaged one another in separate battles • But, light infantry could defeat heavy • Avoid shock combat • On flat terrain • With ammo (missiles) and patience • Example: Athenians vs. Aetolians (light forces exhausted heavy infantry)

15. Logistics / Greek Supply “System” • Concentration of army  food supply problems • Cavalry – major supply problem • Solution • Greek militias didn’t fight long campaigns • Move or disperse forces • Reliance on private enterprise • State provided troops with $ before campaign • Soldiers were expected to purchase supplies off economy

16. Greek Manpower System • Militia • Advantages • Low cost during peace time • Able to field large numbers in emergency • Disadvantages • Could not fight long war or even campaign; members had to return to civilian occupations • No specialized training or equipment; some warriors came to fight with agricultural tools

17. Limited Aspects of Greek Warfare • Greek terrain: mountainous, poor pasturage • Not suited to cavalry tactics • Fighters sought level ground for battles • Defenders rarely enjoyed dominance • Light casualties • Unwieldy formation • No ability for phalanx to pursue • “Greek warrior code” • Didn’t destroy cities • Inhibited development of new strategies The physical environment… a strategic constant…

18. Persian Military System

19. Empire • Massive Asian empire • Mediterranean (Egypt, Asia Minor) to India • Army reflected empire’s multinational character • Many nationalities, language groups • Core of army – Persians and those closely affiliated in race and religion • Terrain – more level (esp. Mesopotamia) • Stressed mobility • Emphasis on chariots, then cavalry • Cavalry’s advantage over chariot • Lower cost • Better than chariot on rough terrain

20. How did Persia’s physical environment shape or effect its tactical emphasis?

21. Tactical Emphasis • Focus on light infantry and cavalry • Weapons: bow (primary), javelin (secondary) • Wicker shields, no armor (force protection?) • Emphasis on fires and mobility/maneuver • Tactics: Fix EN with cavalry attacks at the flanks, DES EN with light infantry (archers) • Rudimentary “combined arms” Persians relied on combination of two weapon systems (cavalry + light infantry) while Greeks only one (heavy infantry)

22. Persian Manpower System • Professional army • Full time experts • Practiced sophisticated and well-integrated modes of warfare • Rudimentary “combined arms” • Sophisticated siege TTPs

23. Greco-Persian Wars • Two Key Battles • Marathon 490 B.C. • Greeks defended flanks with terrain • Persians lacked cav; unable to employ tactical sys • Result: Greeks defeated light infantry (untrained for close combat, w/o armor) with heavy infantry • Plataea 479 B.C. • Greeks defended flanks with terrain • Persians unable to employ cavalry in combination with light infantry vs. Greek heavy infantry • Result: Greeks defeated cavalry and light infantry with heavy

26. Greco-Persian Wars • Greek victories defensive in nature • Won by fighting on ground of their choosing • Wisely avoided battle on level, open terrain • Greeks defeated Persians by denying them use of their lethal cavalry / light infantry combination • Greek system was not inherently better! Marathon Plataea

27. Macedonian Military System

28. Featured Commander:Alexander the Great

29. Alexander the Great • Blended Greek and Persian Systems, creating a true combined arms force • Genius with excellent judgment • Employed wise and talented advisors • Led from the front • Inspirational • Charismatic

30. Military Machine • Combined Arms Force • Heavy cavalry (Alexander’s creation) • Light cavalry (traditional role – missile) • Heavy infantry (traditional role with lighter hypaspists as enveloping force) • Light infantry (traditional role – missile) • Integrated four weapon systems into mutually supporting combat team • Professional (full time) army • Siegecraft • Greeks/Macedonians  Persian level of proficiency

31. Heavy Cavalry • Innovative use of cavalry • Armor, shield, cavalry spear • Excellent training • Disciplined; trained to work in groups  concentrate forces • Could outrun light infantry and defeat light cavalry (unprepared for shock action) • “Companions of the King” (approx 2,000) Alexander was first to grasp the strength of using cavalry as shock troops.

32. Heavy Infantry • Phalanx • Increased length of spear in rear ranks • Put rear ranks in the fight • Emphasis on group over individual; less individual expertise required • Lower equipment cost (no armor in rear ranks) • Hypaspists (Macedonian heavy infantry) • High degree of individual skill; less dependence on formation • Lighter armor • Enveloping force Hypaspist

35. Logistics • Reduced number of servants • 1 servant / 4 soldiers • Macedonians carried own weapons/armor • Preferred pack animals over wagons/carts • Negotiated tough terrain • 1 animal / 50 men • Kept most of his supplies on ships • Sea transport 30 x less expensive • Small vessels could carry 60,000 lbs of provisions, a day’s ration for 20,000 men • No reliance on private enterprise • Created depots ahead of army movement

36. Featured Campaign:Alexander’s Persian Conquest

37. Unlimited Political Objective Limited Political Objective Opposing Political Leadership Survives Opposing Political Leadership is Removed Change form of gov’t/ ruling class Intimidate Cause change in policy Change regime Conquer/ Absorb Exterminate (Genocide) Reduce EN milit. capacity Take slice of territory Political Objective • Was Alexander’s political objective limited or unlimited?

38. Political Objective Unlimited Political Objective Limited Military Objective Limited Military Objective Unlimited Military Strategy: Erosion Military Strategy: Annihilation Military Objective / Strategy • Was the military objective limited or unlimited? • What type of military strategy did Alexander employ?

39. Military Strategy • Persians were dominant naval power • But navy severely constrained by logistics (closely “tethered” to the port) • Alexander systematically captured seaports, denying Persians ability to use logistic hubs • Secondary effect – facilitated maritime resupply of his army

40. Campaign Design • Timing • Campaign began just before harvest • After harvest, access to one year of supply • Needed goodwill of local population; force produced less food than cooperation • Macedonian supply vessels protected b/c Persian navy sailors were waiting on harvest Battle of Issus

41. Campaign Design • Route planning • Advanced along coastal route • Thickly settled  good roads for marching (15 miles/day) • Route through productive agricultural areas • Route near major rivers (drinking water) • Easy re-supply from the sea • Coast had mainly Greek population (often in revolt against Persian authority) • Greek coastal cities “surrendered” to Alexander, who “liberated” fellow Greeks from Persian control • Appointed politically acceptable governors from local region

43. Principles of War GREEKS Mass Objective Offensive Security Economy of Force Maneuver Unity of Command Surprise Simplicity MACEDONIANS Mass Objective Offensive Security Economy of Force Maneuver Unity of Command Surprise Simplicity • PERSIANS • Mass • Objective • Offensive • Security • Economy of Force • Maneuver • Unity of Command • Surprise • Simplicity