University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2012-12-12 Greek and Near Eastern warfare 3000 to 301: the development and perfection of combined arms Wrightson, Graham Charles Liquorish Wrightson, G. C. (2012). Greek and Near Eastern warfare 3000 to 301: the development and perfection of combined arms (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26321 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/346 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Greek and Near Eastern warfare 3000 to 301: the development and perfection of combined arms By Graham Charles Liquorish Wrightson A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA December 11th, 2012 Graham Charles Liquorish Wrightson 2012 ABSTRACT This dissertation traces the developments in battlefield tactics from the early Mesopotamian societies through to the battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE. The primary concern is an analysis of the system of combined arms and its gradual implementation in the Near East and Greece. This thesis will show that armies using combined arms generally proved to be more successful than those that did not. Moreover the use of combined arms was one of the underlying causes for the many victories of the most successful conquest societies in this period, principally Neo-Assyria and Macedon. Conversely the Persian Empire was created through the use of overwhelming resources but was defeated precisely because of its minimal use of combined arms. Overall this thesis will provide a thorough examination of the history of combined arms in ancient warfare and a detailed analysis of its benefits. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the Department of Greek and Roman Studies for their generous financial support without which I would have been unable to devote so much time to this enterprise. I thank my colleagues in the Department for sitting through and providing generous feedback from my numerous presentations of my arguments, especially Carolyn and Sean who heard parts of this thesis repeatedly. I also thank Sean for happily succumbing to my repeated requests to use his books. I also especially thank my supervisor Waldemar Heckel for giving me so much support and good advice throughout this process and who was able to endure my off beat work patterns. Finally I especially want to deeply thank my lovely wife Dorie for putting up with all the lonely nights while I was in my office and for encouraging me to discuss matters with her over the years. iii Contents Introduction part 1: The purpose and methodology of the study 1 Methodology & Terminology – A conceptual methodological framework: 8 Introduction part 2: The theory of combined arms 18 Unit categorization and subdivisions 19 Conclusions: The benefit of Combined Arms and Integrated Warfare 36 Chapter 1: Historical Developments: Eastern Civilizations 38 Early Eastern warfare 38 The Hittites and Egypt – the horse-drawn chariot and the composite bow 62 Neo-Assyria and the development of cavalry 87 The Persian Empire and its (mis)use of a combined arms army 103 Persian armies exposed without using combined arms properly – Marathon 116 Chapter 2: Greece before the hoplite phalanx 127 Mycenaean warfare 127 Homeric Warfare 137 Chapter 3: Historical development of Combined Arms: Greece 149 Primary sources 149 Archaic Greece 150 Persia vs. Greece: The advantages of the heavy infantryman 159 The Peloponnesian War: Combined arms innovation on the battlefield in Greece 165 After the Peloponnesian War: The integration of light infantry and cavalry 182 The Corinthian War & the Theban Hegemony: Light infantry & cavalry tactics 190 Macedon and Integrated Warfare 200 The Successors and the battle of Ipsus: War elephants and integrated warfare 209 Postscript: Field artillery 216 Chapter 4: Battle Case Studies 219 Plataea 219 Syracuse 226 Chaeronea 233 Issus and Gaugamela 235 iv Paraetacene and Gabiene 241 Ipsus 244 Conclusion: Neo-Assyria, Persia, Greece & Macedon: The success of combined arms 248 Bibliography 254 Greece, Macedon, Persia and General warfare 254 Eastern Empires 325 v Introduction part 1: The purpose and methodology of the study Greek warfare after the introduction of the hoplite remained tactically static for centuries. A number of factors created this circumstance the geography of Greece, the political climate, the lack of external spheres of conflict or military influence, and the lack of any necessity to develop other styles of warfare, to name a few. After the Peloponnesian War Greek poleis began to make use of other units in battle and develop innovative tactics not wholly reliant on a hoplite phalanx as the new demands, resources and operational theatres of war required. This process eventually led to the multi-faceted armies employed by Alexander the Great and his Successors. The main focus of this dissertation is an examination of Greek warfare from the archaic period through to the wars of Alexander’s Successors, tracing the development and importance of ‘combined arms’ in land warfare.1 In order to examine combined arms and the process of the implementation of ‘integrated warfare’ in Greece this study will concentrate on the introduction and development of individual units and their coordination and use in battle. This will start with the beginnings of hoplite warfare in the seventh century and end at the battle of Ipsus in 301. The battle of Ipsus is a good terminal point for a number of reasons: by 301 most units found in ancient armies had come into being and been used effectively; few new tactics involving combined arms occur afterwards; and after Ipsus primary source material becomes fragmentary and less reliable, especially concerning tactical details. Putting Greek warfare in context The Greeks did not develop their style of war in a vacuum and so before examining hoplite warfare it is necessary also to be familiar with earlier Greek practices as well as contemporary warfare elsewhere. It is especially important to review the methods of war in influential societies that had direct or indirect contact with early Greece, in particular the Near East. The beginnings of combined arms can be seen in early Greece and other contemporary civilizations and therefore 1 What is meant by the terms combined arms and integrated warfare will be discussed below alongside an outline of the specific terminology to be used. The principal focus of this study is land warfare, in particular the specific tactics employed in battle. As a result naval and siege warfare, as well as other aspects of war and the modern application of combined arms, do not feature in this discussion. See below for a detailed discussion of what is meant by combined arms. 1 the subsequent shift of focus in Classical Greece to an army reliant on heavy infantry alone becomes that much more significant. At the collapse of the Bronze Age the Greeks regressed in military style to a simpler army structure, which, though simple, was better at effective conflict resolution. This change can be explained by a number of factors, such as the nature of the polis and consequent parochialism, Greece’s mountainous terrain and isolated position, and the fact that war was primarily used for defence and resolving local disputes but not conquest. As Greek poleis expanded their influence outside their immediate area, rival states or different terrain prompted changes in military style. This necessitated a return to combined arms and led to the integrated warfare of the Macedonian style armies of the fourth century. The need for this examination Much has been written on Greek warfare in general and on specific armies, battles and units. But when scholars discuss battle tactics or unit types there is no concept of a tactical continuum or concern for unit evolution over the whole period. Even works intended as overviews of all Greek or ancient warfare often view each conflict independently with only a few threads of development followed throughout. Perhaps the earliest example is Sir Edward Creasy’s The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: from Marathon to Waterloo (Boston, 1851) where each battle discussed is dealt with in isolation. H. Delbruck’s Warfare in Antiquity, History of the Art of War (1920, republished by the University of Nebraska in 1990), continues this trend even though it is intended as a complete history of the science of warfare rather than a simple discussion of individual conflicts. This is also true even for works written by experienced commanders, such as J.F.C. Fuller’s The Decisive Battles of the Western World and their Influence upon History (New York, 1954) and The Influence of Armament on History from the Dawn of Classical Warfare to the End of the Second World War (New York, 1945), and T.A. Dodge’s Great Captains. Alexander: A History of the Origin and Growth of the Art of War from the Earliest Times to the Battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301 (New York 1890). General Sir John Hackett’s edited volume Warfare in the Ancient World (New York, 1989) is a more recent example. 2 Modern scholars have followed the same trend, in particular J. G. Warry’s Warfare in the Classical World (London, 1980).2 Victor Davis Hanson’s numerous general works on ancient warfare, and on Greece in particular, examine individual generals, statesmen or battles but do not demonstrate any concept of a process of continual development throughout.3 Even his recent work on the subject, The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern (New York 2010), does not mention in detail combined arms in the ancient world and does not focus on the development of ancient warfare from simple battles through to the advanced mixed armies of the Successors.