Westview Press, 241 p., ill.

Recently, Western historiography has significantly increased interest in the military affairs of antiquity. Among other aspects of this topic, subjects related to cavalry are also explored. Thus, P. Greenhol considered the complex of weapons and types of archaic horsemen of the Greeks, according to representative monuments, G. Byu investigated the social and political situation of Athenian horsemen in the archaic and classical eras. A. Spence analyzed in detail along with the social and military aspect of the problem ¹ . Among these works are

¹ Greenlialgli P.A.L. Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages. Cambr., 1973; Bugh G.R. The Horsemen of Athens. Princeton, 1988; Spence I.G. The Cavalry of Classical Greece. A Social and Military History with Particular Reference to Athens. Oxf., 1993.

page 175

There is also a monograph by the Washington researcher Leslie J. Smith. Worley. He sees his task in studying the role of cavalry on the battlefields of ancient Greece, starting from the Mycenaean period and ending with the Eastern campaign of Alexander the Great ("Introduction", p. 2-5). Thus, the author considers his main goal to fill in a certain gap in historiography concerning the entire period of development of the Greek cavalry in the pre-Hellenistic era.

L. Worley begins his work by examining the Mycenaean horsemen and horsemen of the Dark Ages (Chapter 1 - "The Mycenaean Mounted Warrior", pp. 7-20). He rightly believes that already in the XIV century BC, the Greeks had horsemen. We know this from both terracotta figurines and Mycenaean-style crater paintings. At the same time, the author's opinion does not seem sufficiently convincing, according to which the message on two Knossos tablets about the issue of one shell and a horse can be considered as evidence of the presence of armored cavalry. A more plausible explanation is the difference in the number of items of equipment supplied by the palace: as in the East, what charioteer ² needed was given out . If we can support the author's claim that horses were used for mobile movement rather than for combat during this period, then we certainly cannot agree with the statement that at the same time a certain part of the riders fought by frontal attack of the enemy. There is no evidence or historical parallel for the latter claim. Turning to the period of the Dark Ages (Chapter 2) and early Archaism, the author rightly notes that along with the Hoplites, already in the VIII century BC, the Greeks had real horsemen fighting on horses, which were brought by Hellenic colonists to Magna Graecia.

Further, L. Worley examines the role of cavalry in the conflicts of Archaic Greece (Chapter 3 "Greek Cavalry in the Archaic period", pp. 21-58). Based mainly on Aristotle's testimony about the dominance of cavalry (Polit. IV. 10. 10 (1297b)), the author believes that in the early Archaic era, before the introduction of the Hoplite phalanx, the battlefields were dominated by horsemen, who played a major role in the Lelanthian and 1 Messenian wars (the last third of the VIII century BC).Indeed, according to Plutarch's account (Amatorius. 17. 4-9 = Mog. 760 e-f), the Thessalian cavalry played a decisive role in the war between Chalcis and Eretria. However, the second statement of the author, about the same role of horsemen during the fighting in Messenia, is not valid. Pausanias ' testimony suggests just the opposite. Thus, in describing the battle of the moat during this war, he says::

"In this battle, either only or almost only Hoplites fought on both sides. Few were on horseback and did not do anything that is remembered, for, indeed, the Peloponnesians were not the best in riding at that time "(Paus. IV. 8. 12). Quite clearly. that already in this period there were regional differences in the development of military affairs of the Greeks in general and Equestrians in particular. Worley, looking at 300 Spartan hippeis, suggests that they were recruited 100 warriors from each of the three philae (p. 24). Referring to the Thessalian cavalry, the researcher supports the unlikely view that the Greeks of this region received "large horses" from the Cimmerians (p .28-29), although it is quite obvious that the latter had steppe-type horses. ³ The Thessalian cavalry, according to the author, consisted of noble landowners and their close associates. After the reorganization of the army of Thessaly by Alev the Red at the end of the 7th century BC, the horsemen began to be formed up for battle in a diamond pattern (pp. 29-31). However, it is hardly possible to directly transfer the evidence of this system among the Thessalians, preserved in the "tactics", which speak of a well-organized cavalry of the late classical-Hellenistic time, to the VII century BC (Asclep. Tact. 7. 2; Ael. Tact. 18. 2; Arr. Tact. 16. 3).

Having mentioned the existence of cavalry among the Greeks of Ionia, Magnesia, and Colophon (pp. 35-36), the author proceeds to consider the images of types of horsemen on archaic Greek vases (mainly in the sixth century BC). He identifies three types of horsemen: real horsemen who fight in battle with a piercing or throwing spear, lightly armed throwers, and "dragoons", which, if necessary, could fight both on foot and on horseback. At the same time, the author clearly overestimates the capabilities of the Greek cavalry, considering that it

² Uchitel A. Charioteers of Knossos / / Minos. 1988. V. 23. P. 47-58; Nefedkin A. K. Fighting chariots in ancient Greece (XVI-1st centuries BC): Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences, St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 7-8; see also Nefedkin A. K. Battle chariots of the ancient Greeks (XVI-I centuries BC). Petersburg Oriental Studies. Chapter 2. Part 3. 2 (in print).

³ Tsalkin V. I. Drevneye zhivotrebovodstvo plemen Vostochnoi Evropy i Srednoi Azii [Ancient animal husbandry of tribes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia]. MIA. 1966. N 135.pp. 45-46,48, 89.

page 176

even at this time, it could successfully attack the formation of heavy infantry (pp. 48-49, 170). To prove his assumption, L. Worley cites the report of Herodotus about the attack of the Thessalian horsemen on the Spartans (V. 64). However, it seems that in this case it was about the attack of the army on the march. The same applies to the battle on the Falernian Plain in 511/510 BC (V. 63). Thus, there is no reason to reconsider the traditional view that cavalrymen did not dare to attack an unstructured phalanx. This, however, is further recognized by the author himself (p. 53): the battle of Plataea (479 BC) showed everyone the futility of cavalry attacks on infantry, because among the Persian horsemen there were also Greek horsemen (p. 57-58). This, according to L. Worley, was a milestone in the development of the archaic cavalry of the Hellenes.

Chapter 4, " Greek cavalry in the age of Pericles "(p. 59-81) is devoted to the development of cavalry in 479431 BC.The author begins his narrative with a description of the organization and armament of the Boeotian cavalry, which, according to his assumption, consisted of 11 territorial detachments, built in five ranks and ten rows (p. 60-63). However, it is impossible to support the researcher's opinion about the existence of large formations of several silt riders in the Boeotian Union. Such large military units of cavalry appear only during the Eastern campaign of Alexander ⁴ .

The main topic of this chapter is the Athenian cavalry. Probably, L. Worley is right, considering that it was already in the archaic era, since there was a censored class of horsemen, and on vases of the VI century BC there are numerous images of horsemen (pp. 63-64). During the struggle of Peisistratus against representatives of aristocratic families, the number of cavalry significantly decreased, although it did not cease to exist until the wars with the Persians (p. 64-66). After the campaign of Xerxes, the number of Athenian cavalry gradually increased from 300 citizens-horsemen to 600 and 1000 (p. 69-70). Moreover, the author reconstructed the second transition number himself (p. 195, note 61). Horsemen were both pentakosiomedimny and horsemen, and rich Zeugites, who, serving in the cavalry, according to the researcher, passed into the equestrian class. The total number of cavalry in Athens (1,200 horsemen) was 5 % of the total male population, since due to the trierarchy and age-related fitness, only 45% of those who were supposed to serve served here (pp. 72-77). By the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian cavalry was among the best in Greece and ranked second only to the Thessalians in terms of numbers.

Chapter 5 " Greek cavalry in the Peloponnesian War "(pp. 82-122) deals with the role of horsemen in the last third of the fifth century BC.During the Archidamian War (43121 BC), the Athenian and allied Thessalian cavalry (about 2000 horsemen) outnumbered the forces of the Spartan king (800-900 horsemen) and waged a raid war. In 424 BC, to protect themselves from the Athenian raids, the Spartans created cavalry detachments, as well as foot archers (Thuc. IV. 55. 2).The horsemen were organized according to the following principle: the noble Spartans provided a horse, and hypomeions fought on it, and initially they dismounted for battle (p. 89). The author's last statement does not seem likely. It is quite clear that the creation of the horsemen was an attempt by Lacedaemon to resist the actions of the Athenians. The Spartan horsemen, like their opponents, fought on horseback. The author goes on to discuss why Athens sent only 30 horsemen to the Sicilian expedition (415 BC) (Thuc. VI. 43). L. Worley does not support G. Bew's version that the Athenians hoped for the help of their Sicilian allies ^.5 He believes that this was due to the lack of ships and the need to use these cavalry for operations in Greece (p. 103). Generally. according to the researcher, the cavalry was used during this period for reconnaissance, cover, raids and territory protection. Sometimes it played a crucial role in battles. Thus, in 429 BC, Chalcedonian horsemen, light-armed men, and Peltasts defeated the Athenians at Spartolus; in 424 BC, at Delia, Boeotian cavalry came to the rear of the Athenians, causing panic, and thereby bringing victory to their army; in 418 BC, at Mantinea, Athenian horsemen prevented the encirclement, and Consequently, the Spartans ' destruction of the Athenian infantry on the Allied left wing; in Sicily (415-413 BC), the actions of the Syracusan horsemen also contributed significantly to the victory (pp. 121-122).

Chapter 6 - "Greek cavalry in the IV century BC" (pp. 123-152). During this period, according to L. Worley, two phenomena are observed: during the eastern campaigns of the Greeks, cavalry played a significant role, and on the battlefield there is coordination of the branches of the armed forces (p. 123). Noting the presence of horsemen during the "March of the Ten Thousand", the author suggests that

⁴ Tarn W.W. Alexander the Great. V. II. Cambr., 1950. P. 161.

⁵ Bugh. Op. cit. P. 99-100.

page 177

Xenophon was the organizer of the cavalry of Agesilaus in the winter of 396/5 BC. e. However, I note that the Attic historian himself does not attribute any role to himself in this (Xen. Ages. 1. 24; Hell. III. 4. 15; cf. Plut. Ages. 9). Later, in the first half of 360 BC, Xenophon outlined his methods of training and organizing horsemen in two treatises, "On Horsemanship" and " On the Duties of Hipparchus "(pp. 136-139). If we accept the assumption of L. Worley that Xenophon recommends changing the armament of the Ionian horsemen to equipment on the Persian model, then a certain contradiction in the description of details is removed (Xen. De re eq. 12. 1-13). After all, Xenophon recommends replacing the Greek horseman's spear with two Persian coats, one of which is thrown, and the second is fought hand-to-hand (Xen. De ge eq. 12. 12). But the Athenian horsemen already had two spears. Then why do we need a recommendation on rearmament in general? However, if we consider that the Attic writer was talking about arming the Ionian cavalry, then everything becomes more clear: they were armed in the first half of the IV century BC. e. there was one spear ⁶ . Although, of course, the Thessalian horsemen were also armed with a piercing spear during ^the same period7 . But Xenophon doesn't seem to be talking about them. Already in the Battle of Sardis (395 BC) with the Persian cavalry, Agesilaus ' horsemen, interacting with the light and most mobile part of the heavy infantry, decided the outcome of the case (pp. 140-141).

Worley associates the culmination of the development of the Greek cavalry proper with the name of the Theban general Epaminondas (p. 141-150). Considering the battles of Leuctra (371 BC) and Mantinea (362 BC), the author highlights the tactical features of the Boeotian cavalry: raiding, covering and protecting their troops, in battle it fights with the enemy's horsemen, covers the enemy's flank, trying to go to the rear of the enemy's infantry.

Chapter 7 - " The Cavalry of Philip II and Alexander III "(pp. 153-167). In this period, according to the author, the Macedonian cavalry becomes a "hammer" that attacks the enemy's foot and horse formations, using the speed and strength of horses. Philip II, developing the Macedonian horse tradition, created a heavily armed cavalry, distributing estates not only to natural Macedonians, but also to the Greeks (p.155). If in 358 BC he had 600 horsemen, then in six years they were already 3000 (p. 155; Diod. XVI. 35. 4). Worley supports the traditional view that the Getaire heavy cavalry was armed with sarissas (p. 156) ^.8 I can't agree with this assumption. In Alexander's cavalry, only the Thracian prodromes among the horsemen had a sarissa, apparently a spear of the Northern Balkan type (Curt. IV. 15. 13; Arr. An. I. 13. 1; 14. 1; Ovid. Epist. I. 3. 59). It is precisely because of this special weapon that only prodromes are referred to in the sources as "sarissonos" (Arr. An. I. 14. 1; Curt. IV. 15. 13) ⁹ . The Hetairians, on the other hand, were armed with long Macedonian spears with arrows, xystones (Eiotta-Arr. An. I 15. 1; 5-6; 16. 1: VII. 6. 5). Moreover, during the Hellenistic period, which, unfortunately, is very poorly covered by preserved sources, we no longer meet horsemen with sarissas. Mounted spearmen are called" spear -"," konto -", or" xystone-bearers "in Tactics, depending on the type of weapon (Asclep. Tact. 1. 3; Ael. Tact. 2. 12; Arr. Tact. 4. 2). Therefore, if mounted sarissophores existed in the Hellenistic period, at least they were not widespread, and the same Xystonians continued to operate on the battlefield. Further, we cannot agree with Worley's opinion that the prodromes were armed with sarissas with a length of 4.5-5.5 m (p. 156). In this case, the author is based on the reconstruction of this weapon by M. M. Markle10 . However, already from the article of the latter, it becomes clear that such a long sarissa could not be used in battle: it could not even be moved from one grip to another with one hand - the help of the second hand was needed ¹¹ . It is quite clear that the length of this peak was smaller. Building the Macedonian cavalry in a wedge the author explains

⁶ See Athenian tombstone of a horseman with two spears of the fifth century BC: Lefebvre des Noettes R. L'attelage, Ie cheval de selle a travers les ages. Contribution a l' histoire de I' esclavage. T. 2. P., 1931. Fig. 240; horseman. depicted on a coin from Magnesia on a Meander, it has one spear (the first half of the IV century BC), see Ancient civilization. Moscow, 1973. p. 71.

⁷ See the coin of Alexander Fersky: Couissin P. Les institutions militaires et navales. P., 1932. PI. X, 4.

⁸ Manti PA. The Cavalry Sarissa//The Ancient World. 1983. V. 8. N 1-2. P. 73-80.

⁹ Ср. Mixter J.R. The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa during the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great // Ibid. 1992. V. 23. N 2. P. 25.

¹⁰ Markle M. M., III. The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armor //AJA. 1977. V. 81. N 3. P. 323-339.

¹¹ For M. M. Markle's critique of the reconstruction of Sarissa, see Manti J. R. The Macedonian Sarissa, Again / / The Ancient World. 1994. V. 25. N 2. P. 77-91.

page 178

as an advantage when attacking the enemy's formation, and convenience for movement (p. 157). However, G. Delbrueck has already shown that the first explanation is not the reason for the formation of cavalry in a wedge - it is impossible to compare the way the knife enters the oil and the actions of living people (cf. Asclep. Tact. 7. 3; Ael. Tact. 18. 4) ¹² .

From the battles of this era, L. Worley analyzes two battles - at Chaeronea (338 BC) and at Issa (333 BC). At Chaeronea, Alexander's cavalry attacked the extended Greek infantry formation at the right moment - this led to victory (p.162). Then the author, without mentioning the Battle of Granicus, immediately begins to describe the battle of Issus, in which the Macedonian horsemen of Alexander's right wing first attacked the Persian infantry, and then, having crushed it, went on the offensive against the center of the Persian army, where the king was standing - this ensured victory (pp. 166-167). In general, the attacking "hammer", according to L. Worley, the Macedonian cavalry was made by the use of special weapons (pikes), the formation of horsemen in a wedge, as well as the speed, weight and strength of the attack (p.167).

In Conclusion (pp. 169-172), the author divides the entire development of the ancient Greek cavalry into three stages. The first stage is characterized by the fact that the horse was used by warriors as a means of transport to the battlefield (Mycenaean era and the period of the Dark Ages). For the second stage (the archaic and classical era), "the horse was a platform from which the rider fought and at times dominated the battlefield" (p.169). Cavalry dominance ended by the time of the Battle of Plataea, when it could no longer shock the phalanx. The third and final stage is associated by L. Worley with the appearance of cavalry as a force capable of attacking both infantry and cavalry of the enemy. This is what we see in Greece in the fourth century BC, and then in the armies of Philip II and Alexander III. However, it is not clear why the author combines in one period the cavalry of the era of the Theban hegemony, which fought traditionally, and the Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry, rushing to attack for the subsequent transition to hand-to-hand combat.

The book is provided with a list of abbreviations (p. 173-175), notes (p.177-218), bibliography (p. 219-228), a short summary (p. 229) and a detailed index of names, titles and objects (p. 230-241).

The author of the monograph is mainly based on the information of ancient authors and the opinions of modern researchers, while epigraphic data are almost not used. Moreover, L. Worley uses already established theories, without entering into a particularly heated discussion with other researchers. The original authors, as it seemed to me, are reconstructions of the Greek cavalry battle formations - a topic that seems to be particularly close to L. Worley. Based on tactician reports about the formation of the Hellenic horsemen in rectangular detachments (Athenians, Boeotians, Sicilians), the Thessalians - in a rhombus, and the Macedonians - in a wedge (Asclep. Tact. 7. 2-4; Ael. Tact. 18. 2-5; Arr. Tact. 16. 3-9), the author calculates how many ranks and ranks each detachment of horsemen had among these Greek troops (p. 25, 31, 61-62, 75, 90-91,91-92,100-102, 137- 138,157).

Worley correctly compares the cavalry of the ancient Greeks with the cavalry of the East and with the cavalry of Modern times. This allows us to clarify and reconstruct certain points that are not reflected in ancient sources. In general, L. Worley correctly notes that "the Greeks did not ignore cavalry and its role on the battlefield" (p. 172), but, at the same time, he, as one might expect, still sometimes overestimates its role. In general, the work is a substantial and good sketch of the development of the Greek cavalry from the Mycenaean to the Hellenistic period. It remains to be regretted that the diverse and interesting material devoted to the era following Alexander's death was not reflected in this monograph.

¹² Delbrueck CHAPTER Istoriya voennogo iskusstva v ramkakh politicheskoi istorii [The history of military art in the framework of Political history].

Permanent link to this publication: