Alexander's Cavalry

So I know that Alexander of Macedon famously made strong use of his cavalry forces in a time when they weren't the primary focus of most or many armies. He had his elite Companions cavalry and they are often noted as the portion of his army held in the highest esteem by Alexander himself and, perhaps, the rest of his armies too.

Given that Alexander made such ample use of his cavalry and it would be a while before Europe embraced cavalry as a primary and integral part of their fighting forces (for instance, the Romans relying so heavly on infantry and their cavalry not being as honored or as large a part of their military as Centurions and such and the Gauls and other Celtic tribes of the Roman and later eras being made up almost exclusively of infantry, it seems) and considering he had such success in his battles, why did cavalry still not become a primary part of most armies in Europe for some time?

And what kind of weapons and tactics did Alexander's cavalry use? I've read that he made great use of hammer-and-anvil tactics with his cavalry being the hammer and infantry the anvil, but how were his cavalrymen armed and how did they fight otherwise? Did they charge with spears like later lancers and use the momentum and mass of their horses to break lines? Did they simply use their spears to stab at enemy infantry from horseback? Did they use smaller arms to slash at enemy foot soldiers while riding?

>actual history post
>no replies
>Veeky Forums in a nutshell

>why did cavalry still not become a primary part of most armies in Europe for some time?
Because Alexander attacked the east, and many do believe the rise and popularity of cataphracts in the east (which developed a lot later than people think) was due to the influence of alexanders cavalry. Before him, most Persian cavalry was simply horse archers, and it was only really the scythians who had cataphracts and they didnt have proper ones at this point.

alexanders cavalry used the Kontos, a very long two handed lance. For heavy cavalry they were lightly armoured, they've heavy for the way they were used and who they were compared against, they would not be considered heavy cavalry later on. They would have had a sword for back up, they didn't use shields. He liked to charge frontally in the center like at Gaugamela, its so insane it actually worked

Did Alexander himself actually lead these charges as it is often told? Was he ever seriously injured as a result?

Yes and Yes. He was a true hero and leader.

He died too young.

> why did cavalry still not become a primary part of most armies in Europe for some time?
But it did, Cannae and Zama were won by cavalry and as many other battled did. For exapmle, at Cannae Hannibal had 10k cavalry to 40k infantry and Romans had 6k cavalry to 80k infantry. Alexander at Hydaspes had 7k cavalry to 40k infantry. Romans learned their lesson though and at Zama they had pretty alexandrian proportion of 6k cavalry to 30k infantry.

Sure Roman cavalry wasn't spectacular, but they extensively used allies with strong cavalry tradition, and Celts had pretty good cavalry too. Considering cavalry was very costly, hard to supply, was effective only on a open space and had limited effectiveness because saddle and stirrup weren't invented yet, it's not a surprise cavalry force were relatively small.

>Given that Alexander made such ample use of his cavalry and it would be a while before Europe embraced cavalry as a primary and integral part of their fighting forces (for instance, the Romans relying so heavly on infantry and their cavalry not being as honored or as large a part of their military as Centurions and such and the Gauls and other Celtic tribes of the Roman and later eras being made up almost exclusively of infantry, it seems) and considering he had such success in his battles, why did cavalry still not become a primary part of most armies in Europe for some time?
roman rich men were all part of the equites you dumbfuck.

In Arrian at one point he shows off his scars when it is claimed that he doesn't respect his soldiers.

He was also heavily injured in an assault on an Indian town

Alexander's main tactic, as best as I can understand it, relies on spotting the momentary weaknesses in enemy lines and exploiting it with a quick cavalry charge. The weakness turns into a disturbance which ripples through the enemy line already engaged with the infantry and causes it to collapse.

So in a sense the "anvil" takes the enemy and the "hammer" hits it where it bends.

Is there a concensus on exactly how he died? Or at least the likelihood of poisoning vs some kind of standard illness?

He's been dying slowly for 10 days before he finally did, so it looks like it was actual illness, most poisons being instant. And before that he almost died of illness and wounds on two occasions so it's not improbable at all.

Does anyone know of any good books about Alexander? I'd like to read more about him and his conquests.

Virtues of War. A semi-fictional book written from the perspective of alexander. Keep the semi fiction part in mind though and don't read it as gospel

no, the two most common theories are illness (possibly malaria or a complication related to long damage caused by the lung puncture he received during the Mallian Campaign) or poisoned by Cassander. Both theories were propagated by Alexander's generals in order to support their bid for power but there's no really consensus on which one it was (although Illness seems more likely)

finished reading Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox, which struck as a fairly good monograph (although I don't really have anything to compare it to)

Oh, had he have lived!

The assyrians had proto-catpahracts, user.

Sword, lance, breatplate, greaves, helmet.

We can't be entirely sure who the lance was used. Likely varied from man to man, and depending on situation.

Some few may have had armor on their arms. This DID exist in the greek world.


He also had greeks, and lighter Macedonian cavalry. Arms for these guys would vary.
Roman cavalry gets an unjustly bad rap-they pretty freqeuently beat "better" cavalry.

>most poisons being instant.
No, no they are not.

He died at the right time, user.

He was pretty insane by the end, and we probably wouldn't be calling him the great had he had more time to purge.

Alexander's cavalry had already been established as some of the world's finest when they stepped foot into Asia. Macedon as a martial kingdom benefited from it's geography. The many plains and grasslands make lends greatly to the production of good cavalry.His horsemen were to a caliber unusual for a Greek state considering the rather rough terrain of the southern mainland. Also accompanying Alexander into his Asian invasion were the Thessalians, who were also reputed to be natural cavalrymen because of the vast Thessalian plain. Both the Thessalians and the Companions were probably afforded larger horses than those found in Central Europe which would partially explain why cavalry was much more prevalent in Macedonian armies. Macedonian cavalry was also a necessity in the new Philippian/Alexandrian style of warfare. The Macedonian phalanx was not expected to defeat an enemy formation alone in frontal combat.
Roman maniples and later legions were used to directly assault and defeat opposing infantry lines. As well, Latium was dotted with many hills and rivers, limiting the space in which large horses could be raised and used for horsemen. The Roman equites were not expected to fulfill the same offensive roles as the Companions. The most successful Italian cavalry contingents would come from flatter lands in the south like Campania and Samnium.

Alexander's companions would have been sporting a long thrusting lance called a Xyston with a sword, either a curved Kopis, or double-edged Xiphos as a side-arm. The Xyston would, of course, be used in the initial charge, but the extra range *could* prove useful in a protracted cavalry engagement, but not if the combat turned into a brawl like at the Granicus. Alexander's horsemen have been described as often aiming for the opponent's face when using their lances. After the inital charge and combat begins to intensify, the men would draw their swords. (1/2)

(2/2)
Neither the Companions, Thessalians or their Persian foes of differing origin have been recorded to use shields too prominently on horseback. The typical Macedonian horseman would have worn a linen breastplate called the Linothorax, while some rode in with metal muscle-cuirass. On their heads, they would have a great variation of quality metal helmets. The Boeotian is the one most attributed to the companions, but the Attic, Thracian, Chalcidian , Phrygian and Konos helmets would have been common. The Corinthian helmets seen in 300 would have fallen out of popularity by this time. Lighter cavalry would probably sport lighter tunics like the chiton and wear simple helmets like the Pilos or cloth caps like the Kausia. Interestingly, the tribal peoples of Afghanistan wear a hat very similar the Kausia that may have been inspired by Macedonian military colonists. The lighter cavalry probably would have a skirmishing role, being equipped with javelins and daggers, but were gradually phased out in favour of Asian light cavalry

>The assyrians had proto-cataphracts
Proper cataphracts, that being heavy cavalry with armoured horses, developed in Western and Central Asia precisely because of the Nisean horses originating from the area of the Zagros mountains, The hosrses would eventually find themselves under the employ of proficient equestrian societies like the Bactrians and Scythians and from there, cataphract tradition would develop. Assyrian cavalry lacked the long thrusting lances (either the Xyston or Kontos) and the metal scale armour on their horses to be considered cataphracts.

I'd like to read some alternate historical fiction where Alexander lived longer.

Fuck Alexander. Why do people admire a ruthless conquerer?

Because he did more.

>spreading glorious Hellenism to far reaches of this gay earth
>people modelled themselves after him like mad
>Macedon was cool, killed Persians and didn't afraid of anything
>people right now are saying they're Alexander's ancestors left to right and fighting over his historical descendance like fucking beasts
>Fuck Alexander
Nobody wants you here John Greene

>didn't even try to justify his wars
>used daddy's army
>had no interest in anything but drinking and fighting

Fuck him.

You'd like to

How skilled was Alexander as a warrior, do we know? We know he was a skilled tactician and strategist and a great conqueror. But what about his skills in combat? We know he took part in his battles and was wounded several times, but is there any sources on how he compared to his soldiers in martial prowess?

Not dying is probably a good indicator

there's a few times where he was cut off from the rest of his troops (usually due to charging forward or being the first one across a wall) and he did alright, although it may just be propaganda. But by all account he was a decent warrior along with being a terrific general

This reminds me of how shitty that Alexander movie is. What a waste. Alexander deserves a good biopic film or television miniseries adaptation.

God its bad, i tried to watch the ultra extended final cut and it was still awful. The only redeeming factor is that the battles are nice, even if the last one is made up

Whats the deal with directors wanting battles to be in heavy forest anyway? That just never happened because its FUCKING RETARDED

How do we get HBO to make an Alexander miniseries or something? Or abother, quality filmmaker to make a more faithful and entertaining film. As much as he's kind of blacklisted, I think Mel Gibson would make a good Alexander movie. Or maybe PTA could make it, though I'm not sure how he would do with a war AND biopic in one.

Most poisons.
Instant.
Wrong.