Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
I
We are often told nowadays that the whole business of war, especially command and administration, is becoming increasingly difficult and complicated as more and more different weapons, each more highly specialized than the last, are brought into service. But the undoubted truth of this contention must not lead us into the error of supposing that ancient warfare was a simple matter between forces composed of nothing but infantry and cavalry. Many of the battles of antiquity, indeed, are made more interesting by the presence of unusual and intriguing armaments; and though some of these may now seem largely obsolete, it does not do to be too sure—was not the Home Guard armed with pikes in its early infancy?
Let us consider, then, the parade state of Antiochus’ army at the battle of Magnesia. After his defeat at Thermopylae in April 191, it will be remembered, he had fled to Ephesus, and by the end of the following year he was ready for the Scipios with an army of 70,000 men. ‘Most of the peoples of the Empire were represented, from Dahae horse-archers of the Caspian to Arabs mounted on dromedaries. It was strong in cavalry—at least 12,000 horse, light or “cataphract”—in light-armed infantry … archers, slingers and javelin men; it included, besides 54 elephants, that engine of war dear to the Ancient East, the dreaded scythed-chariots.’
Here, surely, is a sufficiently varied assortment of nationalities and armaments to show that manifold alliances and specialized equipments are not peculiar to the twentieth century.
page 1 note 1 Cambridge Ancient History, vol. viii, p. 223.Google Scholar See Livy xxxvii. 40; Florus ii. 8. 3871–55
page 2 note 1 This summary of the cataphract is based on Rattenbury, R. M. illuminating study of ‘An Ancient Armoured Force’ in Classical Review, vol. lvi, no. 3 (Nov.. 1942), p. 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and some account of the elephant in ancient warfare appeared in Greece and Rome, vol. xvii, no. 49 (Jan. 1948).Google Scholar
page 2 note 2 Curtius Rufus iv. 9.
page 2 note 3 Crassus 27.
page 3 note 1 Vegetius, , De Re Militari iii.Google Scholar 23, adds that nets were often used to capture cataphracts.
page 3 note 2 I am grateful to the Rev. J. B. Sandeman for calling my attention to this quip of Ambrose (de Officiis i. 40) on 1 Maccabees vi. 43–6.
page 3 note 3 Appian, , Iberica 46.Google Scholar
page 3 note 4 Herodotus i. 80, vii. 87; Pliny, , Nat. Hist. VIII. xxvi. 67–8Google Scholar; Xenophon, , Cyropaedia vii. i. 27, 48–9.Google Scholar
page 3 note 5 Cited by Glover, T. R. in From Pericles to Philip, p. 219.Google Scholar
page 3 note 6 Vegetius, loc. cit.; Pliny, loc. cit.
page 3 note 7 Animal Management 1933 (London, H.M. Stationery Office, 1938), p. 294Google Scholar; ‘if made to kneel [under fire] he will remain so, perfectly quiet and contented’.
page 3 note 8 Ibid., p. 286.
page 4 note 9 See the Old Testament, passim. (Modern readers unfamiliar with this work may refer to Cruden's Concordance under ‘Camel’.)
page 4 note 1 General Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum, p. 129. However, the camel found now in the Egyptian Delta is big, soft, and of no use in the desert. (Animal Management, pp. 286–7.)
page 4 note 2 Op. cit. vi. i. 30, ii. 8; vii. i. 27–8, 48–9.
page 4 note 3 Animal Management, p. 290. A camel weighs 1,500–1,600 lb. (ibid., p. 300).
page 4 note 4 Herodotus vii. 86. Have we here a hint of the modern distinction between riding-camels and baggagers? There was nothing remarkable about the camels in Xerxes' supply column (c. 83), but those carrying the Arab infantry were 
. (Cf. Animal Management, p. 303: ‘the riding camel is as distinct from the baggage animal as a thoroughbred from a cart-horse’.)
page 4 note 5 Livy xxxvii. 40. 12.
page 4 note 6 Cf. Xenophon, , Hellenica iii. iv. 24.Google Scholar
page 4 note 7 Animal Management, pp. 286–7, 295.
page 5 note 1 Ibid., pp. 296 ff.
page 5 note2 Ibid., p. 286.
page 5 note 3 Ibid., p. 300.
page 5 note 4 Ibid., p. 293.
page 5 note 5 Op. cit. iii. 23.
page 5 note 6 Cyropaedia VI. i. 27–30.Google Scholar
page 5 note 7 Later descriptions differ only in detail. Diodorus (xvii. 53), Curtius Rufus (iv. 9), and Livy (xxxvii. 41) add further spikes or blades of varying length (respectively ξύστρα τρισπἱθαμα hastae, cuspides) projecting horizontally from the end of the pole. Do these represent, however inaccurately, a later development of Cyrus’ vehicle, or merely an attempt at ‘artistic verisimilitude’?
page 5 note 8 See Diodorus, loc. cit., πρòς κατάπληξιν καì φόβον τ
ν πολεμίων ε
Φετέως ἐπινενοημένα and Frontinus, Strat. II. iii. 17, ad perturbandum hostem. But they seldom seem to have made much impression.
page 5 note 9 iii. 642 ff.
page 5 note 10 iv. 15: ‘Quippe amputata virorum membra humi iacebant; et quia calidis adhuc vulneribus aberat dolor, trunci quoque et debiles arma non omittebant, donec multo sanguine effuso exanimati procumberent.’
page 6 note 1 Xenophon, , Cyropaedia vii. i. 27.Google Scholar But Herodotus' account (i. 80 ff.) makes no mention of chariots.
page 6 note 2 Even so, they rallied sufficiently to get the better of a follow-up force of Persian infantry, and were not finally overcome until Cyrus in person attacked them from the rear. (Xenophon, , op. cit. vii. i. 29–37).Google Scholar
page 6 note 3 Ibid. vII. i. 47.
page 6 note 4 Hellenica IV. i. 17–19.Google Scholar
page 6 note 5 See especially Plutarch, Sulla xviii. 3.
page 6 note 6 Diodorus' use of the word σεiρoφóρoς at xvii. 53 implies that the scythechariot was drawn by four horses.
page 6 note 7 At Gaugamela, Darius’ chariots advanced with slack reins (Curtius Rufus iv. 15).
page 7 note 1 Ibid.
page 7 note 2 Plutarch, loc. cit. Cf. Vegetius, , op. cit. iii. 24Google Scholar, ‘quadrigas falcatas rex Antiochus et Mithradates habuerunt… postmodum fuere derisui’.
page 7 note 3 Frontinus, loc. cit. He adds (sec. 18) that Caesar used the same method against Gaulish scythe-chariots.
page 7 note 4 Vegetius, loc. cit.
page 7 note 5 2 Maccabees xiii. 1–17.
page 7 note 6 Xenophon, , Anabasis I. viii. 18.Google Scholar
page 7 note 7 Diodorus xvii. 58.
page 7 note 8 Frontinus, loc. cit.
page 8 note 1 Arrian, , Anabasis III. xiii. 5–6.Google Scholar
page 8 note 2 Curtius Rufus, loc. cit.
page 8 note 3 Collingwood, and Myres, , Roman Britain and the English Settlements, p. 41.Google Scholar Among generally accessible ancient authors the only reference to Celtic scythechariots is Frontinus, loc. cit.
page 8 note 4 Aristotle, , H.A. viii. 9.Google Scholar
page 8 note 5 Cf. Diodorus xx. 73.
page 9 note 1 Cambridge Ancient History, loc. cit.
