Ancient Greece & the Macedonian System
description
Transcript of Ancient Greece & the Macedonian System
Ancient Greece & the Macedonian System
Overview• Overview of Military “Systems”
• Greek • Persian • Macedonian
• Featured Commander: Alexander• Featured Campaign: Alexander’s Persian
Campaign• Selected Principles of War Comparison
Learning TargetsThe 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.
Greek Military System
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
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
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
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 anyphysical destruction
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
Light Infantry – Missile (Fires)• Slingers
• Range: 100 yds +• Training: very high• Equipment cost: low• Difficult to develop firepower
due to dispersion required
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
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
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)
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
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
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 physicalenvironment…
a strategic constant…
Persian Military System
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
How did Persia’s physical environment shape or effect its tactical emphasis?
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)
Persian Manpower System• Professional army
• Full time experts• Practiced sophisticated and well-
integrated modes of warfare • Rudimentary “combined arms”• Sophisticated siege TTPs
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
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
Macedonian Military System
Featured Commander:Alexander the Great
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
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
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.
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
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
Featured Campaign:Alexander’s Persian Conquest
Political Objective• Was Alexander’s political objective limited
or unlimited?
Intimidate Cause changein policy
Reduce ENmilit. capacity
Take sliceof territory
Changeregime
Change formof gov’t/
ruling class
Conquer/Absorb
Exterminate(Genocide)
LimitedPolitical Objective
UnlimitedPolitical Objective
Opposing Political Leadership Survives Opposing Political Leadership is Removed
Military Objective / Strategy
• Was the military objective limited or unlimited?
• What type of military strategy did Alexander employ?
Military ObjectiveLimited
Military Strategy:Erosion
Military ObjectiveUnlimited
Military Strategy:Annihilation
Political ObjectiveLimited
Political ObjectiveUnlimited
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
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
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
Principles of WarGREEKS• 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