Last modified on: 03-July-2015
The following is part 1 of a 10 part brief[1] outline of the history of ancient Thessaly highlighting the famous Thessalian cavalry—and Greek cavalry in general—up to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE. If you encounter a word or spelling with which you are unfamiliar, be sure to check the ‘Glossary of Names and Terms’ (see the link on the right under Reference Aids).
 |
| Mainland Greece in the Sixth Century BCE |
Thessalian Prehistory
By far the largest plains in all of mainland Greece are in Thessaly. Sometime before 1000 BCE—roughly a century or so after the fall of the Mycenaean Greek civilization—Aiolic Greek speaking Thessalians established themselves in these broad northern plains. In their own dialect, they called themselves the Petthaloi or Phetthaloi. They came to dominate the non-Thessalian peoples, who lived in the plains and the surrounding highlands.
Unfortunately, ancient Thessalian history was and still is a much neglected topic. Ancient Greek historians such as Herodotos (ca. 485–424 BCE), Thoukydides (ca. 460–397 BCE), and Xenophon (ca. 430–354 BCE) rarely mentioned Thessaly in their works. Thessalians were generally only mentioned when they interacted with Athens, Lakedaimon [Sparta], Phokis, Thebes, and Makedonia. Otherwise, there is very little reference to Thessalian affairs in ancient Greek writings. As a result, the following summary of the history of ancient Thessalian cavalry is admittedly patchy.
At some point in their early history, the Thessalians formed a koinon (state, league). The subjugation of the non-Thessalian peoples living in the plains and the neighbouring mountainous regions was likely the basis for the formation and the continuation of this confederation. The four tetrades—Thessaliotis, Pelasgiotis, Hestiaiotis, and Phthiotis—were administrative districts of the Thessalian koinon apparently created for the purposes of military conscription. Two of these tetrades were named for legendary peoples or places. Pelasgiotis is linked to the pre-Greek Pelasgians, who were said to have lived around Larisa amongst many other places. Phthiotis is linked to Phthia, the home of the legendary Greek hero Akhilleus (Achilles). The confederation’s chief of state was variously called the basileus, arkhōn/arkhos, tetrarkhos, and tagos Unfortunately, we do not know how these various titles differed from one another or even if they all referred to the same office. Based upon our sketchy knowledge, it is clear that the Thessalian koinon was a loose confederation of autonomous states as we often hear of Thessalian cities acting independently. (An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation. [Edited by] Mogens Herman Hansen and Thomas Heine Nielsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Pages 676–678, 680–683)
 |
| Ancient Thessaly |
The fertile plains of Thessaly were worked by penestai (serfs), who likely were amongst the inhabitants of the land during the Mycenaean age.
The official title of the surrounding non-Thessalian peoples often subordinate to the Thessalians was seemingly symmakhoi (allies). However, ancient Greek authors frequently referred to them as hypēkooi (subjects). The term subject-allies seems to be appropriate for these peoples as the Thessalians left them as autonomous states under Thessalian domination. The Phthiotic Akhaians, Magnesians, Perrhaibians, Malians, Dolopes, Ainianes, Oitaians, and Athamanians were all from time to time Thessalian subject-allies. See the map of Thessaly (above) for the location of these peoples. (An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. 2004. Pages 676–731)
Thessalian Aristocrats
Throughout Thessalian history, there were prominent aristocratic families that controlled the major cities. The Aleuadai of Larisa, the Skopadai of Krannon, and the Ekhekratidai, Daokhidai, and Menonidai of Pharsalos were the most notable of these powerful dynasties.
Thessalian aristokratai (aristocrats) adhered to a blue-blooded, equestrian tradition. They were great in numbers due to the relatively immense size and fertility of the Thessalian plains. As a result, the Thessalians possessed the most numerous and most celebrated cavalry in all of ancient Greece. The social status of Thessalian hippeis (cavalrymen, knights) during the Greek Classical Age (ca. 500–323 BCE) is problematic. Though Thessaly was considered a cultural backwater, I doubt that classical Thessaly was a feudal society ruled by only 150 or so powerful barons, who owned most of the land in Thessaly, as a few modern scholars contend.[2] If that had been the case, such a societal structure would have been unique in classical Greece and would surely have been commented upon by any number of ancient authors. It is much more reasonable to assume that, as in other Greek states during the Greek Classical Age, Thessalian horsemen were drawn from the wealthiest segment of society namely the land-owning aristocrats and not from the retainers of a few barons. Demosthenes (Against Aristokrates 23.199) mentioned Menon of Pharsalos—apparently the leader of the Menonidai and perhaps the wealthiest man in Pharsalos—as coming to the aid of the Athenians at Eion with 300 of his own mounted penestai (serfs) along with the generous sum of 12 talents of silver. The fact that Demosthenes (ca. 384/383–322 BCE) referred to Menon’s cavalry force as “his own mounted penestai ” rather than simply as Thessalian cavalry surely indicates that this was an unusual unit—likely consisting of light cavalry—and that Menon did not have aristocratic Thessalian hippeis as his retainers. Otherwise, Menon would surely have taken them to aid the Athenians at Eion.[3]
Xenophon (Hellēnika 6.1.8) wrote that, whenever there was a tagos in Thessaly, the Thessalians were said to be able to field 6,000 horsemen and more than 10,000 hoplites. By way of comparison, the contemporaneous Boiotian League—which possessed the second largest cavalry force in ancient mainland Greece—could field 1,100 cavalrymen and 11,000 hoplites (Hellēnika Oxyrhynkhia Fragment 16.3–4). However, bear in mind that the number of 6,000 was likely the entire recruitment population for Thessalian heavy cavalry. On the other hand, the figure of 1,100 Boiotian cavalry was the anticipated size of the cavalry contingent for an actual Boiotian field army at full strength. For the Thessalians, the ratio of horsemen to hoplites was almost 6 to 10 whereas the ratio was 1 to 10 for the Boiotians. Most other Greek states had an even smaller ratio of horsemen to hoplites than the Boiotians.
 |
| Silver drachma of Pharsalos, Thessaly, ca. 424–404 BCE. A Thessalian horseman wearing a petasos (hat), khlamys (cloak), and khitōn (tunic). He holds a lagōbolon (throwing stick, literally ‘hare missile’). In ancient Thessaly, the above iconic image —often depicting the horseman armed with javelins— was very popular on coins from virtually every Thessalian city. More often than not, ancient Greek coins depict mythological scenes. This image likely depicts Thessalos, the legendary, eponymous ancestor of all Thessalians. He is shown dressed in an aristocrat’s hunting attire and wielding a lagōbolon for clubbing tasty rabbits. |
According to Xenophon (Hellēnika 6.1.3), the Thessalian tropos (way, manner) was to be philoxenos (hospitable) and megaloprepēs (conspicuously great, magnificent). Ostentatious displays of wealth were and still are common amongst aristocratic grandees around the world. It seems reasonable to me that, when going to war, Thessalian aristocrats would have worn expensive and colourful tunics, cloaks, plumes, crests, feathers, helmets, and cuirasses occasionally adorned with silver and gold. In addition, each Thessalian cavalryman undoubtedly had at least one hippokomos (groom) riding a spare horse and carrying an extra doru (thrusting spear) and extra akontes (javelins) as well as at times carrying the aristocrat’s aspis (large, heavy shield). Thessalian cavalry—like other Greek and Makedonian cavalry—did not usually fight with shields while mounted, but we can be certain that they did own shields for use when on foot.[4] Considering that Greek hoplites (heavy infantry spearmen) were generally accompanied on campaign by a single servant, many wealthy Thessalian cavalrymen undoubtedly had several servants when going to war as taking care of several horses and the aristocrat himself was a time consuming daily task.[5]
Thessalian Hoplites
The middle class Thessalians who were rich enough to outfit themselves as hoplites were originally not a significant political force. This may have begun to change around about 400 BCE. The emergence of the tyrannoi (tyrants) of Pherai at this time may have been at least partially due to the increasing economic, social, and political importance of the middle class dēmos (people). I suggest this possibility because in earlier centuries the emergence of Greek tyrants in other Greek states was in many cases due to their support of the lower and middle class dēmos against aristocratic factions. Of course, once in power, the tyrants were mostly concerned with securing their own rule. In any event, the Thessalian aristocrats were able to largely maintain their positions of power against the tyrants and their supporters.
 |
| Black Figure Kalyx Krater. Pharsalos, Thessaly, ca. 530 BCE. (National Archaeological Museum. Athens, Greece) Hoplites fighting over a prone body who likely represents Patroklos, the mythological Greek hero from the Iliad Patroklos grew up with Akhilleus (Achilles) in Phthia, which may have been the earlier name of Pharsalos. |
Thessalian Heavy Cavalry
“Irrespective of where and under what conditions the horse was first domesticated and ridden, there is good reason to believe that skillful, disciplined military use of horse and rider developed first in the Near East, probably among the Assyrians.” We are fortunate that many ancient Assyrian reliefs survive depicting the introduction and evolution of cavalry. The first such common depictions date from the ninth century BCE, but it is not until the seventh century BCE that Assyrian cavalry are portrayed as having supplanted the light 2-horse chariot, which had formerly dominated ancient battlefields. “There is no doubt that the Assyrians had reached a high level of military proficiency by the seventh century B.C., certainly higher than their Greek contemporaries, who probably had no true mounted warriors at the time.”[6]
 |
| Neo-Assyrian Relief, Kalhu (Nimrud), Assyria, ca. 728 BCE. (British Museum, London, England) A wall panel relief from the South West Palace of Tiglath-Pileser III (reigned ca.744–727 BCE) depicting two Assyrian cavalrymen. (Image compliments of the Wikimedia Commons) |
It is frequently disputed whether horsemen in the Greek Archaic Age (ca. 800–500 BCE) were true cavalry or were instead mounted hoplites who rode to battle but dismounted to fight on foot. Undoubtedly, these heavily armoured, mounted aristocrats slowly developed their riding skills until—like Assyrian horsemen—they became true cavalrymen roughly in the last century of the Greek Archaic Age (i.e. the sixth century BCE). Emblematic of this stage in the development of Greek cavalry is the fact that the Thessalian Krauxidas or Kraxilas of Krannon is the first recorded victor in horse racing at the Olympic Games in 648 BCE.[7] Decades later, the Thessalians were renowned amongst all of the Greeks as being the most accomplished practitioners of this new style of mounted warfare.
 |
| Attic Black Figure Vase A76. Late 6th century BCE. (Martin von Wagner Museum. Universität Würzburg, Germany) Two heavy cavalrymen of the late Greek Archaic Age fight with spears over a fallen warrior. All three warriors wear helmets, greaves, and scabbards and are armed with spears. The two mounted warriors hold their spears underhanded to thrust at their opponent. The mounted warrior on the left holds a second spear diagonally in his left hand and wears a metal bell cuirass with a swirl pattern. The bottom rim of his metal bell cuirass is clearly visible. It s difficult to tell if the mounted warrior on the right is wearing a cuirass. A faint marking on his chest may be the design on a metal bell cuirass. |
In his account of the invasion of Makedonia by the Odrysian king Sitakles in ca. 429 BCE, Thoukydides (2.100.5) described Makedonian cavalry—who harassed the Thracian army—as tethōrakismenous (armed with breastplates). In modern terminology, we would refer to these Makedonian horsemen as heavy cavalry.
I have recently posted another blog page entitled “Xenophon on Cavalry”. Xenophon wrote about modes of fighting and equipment that were no doubt common to most Greek states of the Greek Classical Age (ca. 500–323 BCE) including Thessaly. Xenophon made it crystal clear that Athenian horsemen in ca. 360 BCE were heavy cavalrymen—wearing thōrakes (cuirasses) and kranea (helmets)—who were accustomed to fighting with akontes (javelins) as well as with dorata (thrusting spears).
Unfortunately, there were no such terms as light cavalry or heavy cavalry in ancient Greek. Unlike Makedonian and Athenian cavalry, we have no definitive indication regarding whether Thessalian cavalry of the Greek Classical Age (ca. 500–323 BCE) were—in modern terminology—heavy or light cavalry. Plutarch (Pelopidas 33.2) did mention Thessalian horsemen who wore thōrakes (cuirasses) in 364 BCE, but Plutarch (ca. 45–125 CE) was not a writer to inspire much confidence in relating such details. Nonetheless, I believe that the meagre evidence demonstrates quite clearly that the famed horsemen of Thessaly were in fact heavy cavalrymen. I believe that the above statements by Thoukydides and Xenophon indicate that the heavily armoured, mounted aristocrats of the Greek Archaic Age had transitioned into heavily armoured, aristocratic cavalrymen by the era of the Greek Classical Age.
 |
| Silver Stater of Alexander of Pherai, Thessaly, ca. 369–358 BCE. A Thessalian heavy cavalryman wearing an apparent variation of a Boiotian helmet with a longer front visor and lacking the characteristic folds on the sides of a Boiotian helmet. He wears a metal, muscled cuirass with pteryges (flaps). A sword hilt is visible on his left hip. He holds a spear underhanded. Though the vast majority of ancient Greek coins depict mythological scenes, this coin evidently depicts a realistic likeness of a real life Thessalian cavalryman. |
Later in the Hellenistic Age (ca. 323–30 BCE), Greek light cavalry emerged as a common and distinct troop type which regularly served in Hellenistic armies. The Greek historian Polybios (ca. before 199–120 BCE) observed that in war some were eukherēs (reckless, indifferent to danger) and praktikos (effective) in single combat, but were apraktos (ineffective) in syntaxis (organized ranks). To illustrate this point, Polybios contrasted Thessalian cavalrymen with Aitolian horsemen. Polybios wrote that Thessalian cavalry were anypostatos (irresistible) when drawn up by ilē (squadron) in phalangēdon (close order formation)[8], but that separately they were bradys (sluggish) and dyskhrēstos (unmanageable). The cavalry of Aitolia—an underdeveloped, semi-tribal state at the dawn of the Hellenistic Age—were just the opposite being better than all of the other Greeks in fighting as skirmishers “en tois kata meros kai kat’ idian kindynois (in turns and in danger on one’s own)”. (Polybios. 4.8.9–10, 18.22.4–5)
Apparently, when Thessalian horsemen were each in their assigned place in a close order squadron, they were confident and knew how to move, fight, react, and follow orders. No doubt their rhombus or diamond formation (see below) contributed greatly to their proficiency as cavalry fighting in syntaxis (organized ranks) and in phalangēdon (close order formation). On the other hand, they were uncoordinated and hesitant as dispersed individuals fighting as skirmishers in the manner of Aitolian cavalry. This was likely the case in earlier centuries, but when it became an established characteristic of Thessalian cavalry is frankly unknown. Personally, I have no problem assuming that this aspect of Thessalian horsemanship can be extended back to the very beginnings of when the Thessalians became skilled cavalrymen in the sixth century BCE.
Asklepiodotos the philosopher (floruit 1st Century BCE) and the later Ailianos Taktikos (aka Aelian the tactician, floruit early 2nd Century CE) both wrote that the Thessalians were the first to employ the rhombus in cavalry formations.[9] The rhombus or diamond formation was effective in apostrophē (turning away) and in epistrophē (wheeling about). It was difficult to throw into disorder as the best horsemen were stationed on the sides and the very best on the corners. The horseman at the front corner was called the ilarkhēs (squadron commander). At the back corner was the ouragos (rear leader) and on the right and left corners were the plagiophylakes or plagiophylakai (flank guards). Asklepiodotos compared the ease of movement of the rhombus—with all of the troopers keeping their eyes on the ilarkhēs—to the flight of cranes. These descriptions of the Thessalian rhombus effectively corroborate the account of Thessalian cavalry as presented by Polybios. (Asklepiodotos. 7; Ailianos Taktikos. 18–19, 43, 45)
 |
| Rhombus or Diamond Cavalry Formation. (Tactics of Aelian 1814) |
Some modern authors state that the cavalry rhombus was employed primarily for charging and penetrating an enemy formation. Clearly, Thessalian cavalry were more skillful than that and practiced a more fluid style of fighting, which did not necessarily involve charging directly into an enemy formation. In particular—despite being heavy cavalry—Thessalian and other Greek cavalry rarely fought as shock troops versus an infantry front drawn up in close order. Instead, their primary roles were to:
- Scout. (e.g. Xenophon. Anabasis 6.3.10, 6.3.14, 6.3.22)
- Attack the enemy on the march.
- Attack the enemy making camp. (e.g. Xenophon. Hellēnika 5.4.39)
- Forage or protect those who were foraging.
- Attack the flanks and rear of the enemy. (e.g. Diodoros. 15.85.3–4, 15.85.7–8)
- Attack and/or block enemy troops who were threatening the flanks and rear of friendly troops. (Thoukydides. 5.73.1)
- Attack unsupported, enemy detachments. (e.g. Diodoros. 15.85.6; Thoukydides. 5.10.9)
- Attack enemy troops—including hoplites—who were unprepared for battle. (e.g. Herodotos. 5.63.4)
- Attack and/or block victorious enemy troops in pursuit of routing, friendly troops. (e.g. Herodotos. 9.69.2; Xenophon. Hellēnika 5.4.44–45; Thoukydides. 6.70.3)
- Pursue fleeing enemy troops. (e.g. Thoukydides. 2.79.6)
- Attack the enemy’s cavalry and light infantry. (e.g. Thoukydides. 2.79.3; Xenophon. Hellēnika 5.4.54)
- Prevent the enemy from doing all of the above.
❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁ ❁
FOOTNOTES
[1]↩ Well, I intended it to be a brief outline, but things got out of control! Unfortunately, due to chronic illness, I have been unable to finish these pages in a timely fashion.
[2]↩ A fragment of Aristotle (fr. 498)—via a scholiast (commentator) and purporting to be from Aristotle’s Constitution of the Thessalians—stated that Aloas (i.e. Aleuas) created klēroi (allotments, generally for military settlers) each supplying 40 horsemen and 80 hoplites. Some modern scholars amend the 80 hoplites to 80 peltasts. However, Xenophon did not mention Thessalian peltasts in his descriptions of the Thessalian military of ca. 375 BCE. Instead, Xenophon (Hellēnika 6.1.8–9) mentioned 6,000 Thessalian cavalry and more than 10,000 Thessalian hoplites and noted that numerous peltasts were supplied by Thessaly’s surrounding subject-allies and not by the Thessalians themselves. Of course, this may not have been the case in the era of Aleuas if such a person ever existed. Be that as it may, there would need to have been only 150 of these super klēroi in all of Thessaly to supply 6,000 horsemen and 12,000 hoplites. Consequently, some modern writers theorize that there were roughly 150 enormous Thessalian estates owned by a top level elite, whom these modern writers often call barons.
The social situation in the Greek Archaic Age (ca. 800–500 BCE) is cloaked in legendary tales and fables and is largely unknowable with any degree of certainty. As for the Greek Classical Age (ca. 500–323 BCE), I personally doubt the existence of roughly 150 enormous Thessalian estates owned by barons. There was unquestionably a top level elite of extremely wealthy aristocrats in classical Thessaly, but I doubt that they owned most of the land. A feudal social structure in Thessaly would have been unique in classical Greece, so I would really expect that other ancient authors would have mentioned such an atypical society and that there would be some support for this theory in the ancient inscriptions of Thessaly.
Aleuas was a legendary perhaps mythological figure. If he was a real person, he problably lived in the Greek Archaic Age. Despite these doubts about the existence of Aleuas, the Thessalian klēroi attributed to Aleuas could still possibly be historical though to the best of my knowledge there are no ancient inscriptions supporting the existence of Thessalian klēroi A klēros is generally assigned to a single individual for that individual’s own sustenance. It is possible that Aristotle or the scholiast substituted the well known term klēroi in place of an obscure Thessalian term for large estates. If the super klēroi attributed to Aleuas existed in Thessaly, perhaps the term was applied to a group of homesteads each held individually by 40 horsemen and 80 hoplites organized into a military association for the purpose of levying troops. However, I readily admit that this theory is just as speculative as is the baron theory. It does, however, have the advantage of conforming to known Greek societal and military organizations such as the Athenian demes (townships), phylai (civic “tribes” functioning as administrative and military corporate bodies), and phratriai (corporate “brotherhoods” originally kinship groups from a particular district).
All of the above is probably of only theoretical interest as Aristotle—a great philosopher and scientist—is not considered a reliable historian by many modern scholars. E. N. Tigerstedt wrote “Aristole is no historian and he has little or no idea of historical criticism”. George Huxley commented “Tigerstedt specifically objects to Aristotle’s combination of information from primary sources with antiquarian fables and political inventions”! T. W. Africa asserted “As a historian, Aristotle was careless and opinionated, and the celebrated history of the Athenian constitution, which he or his students composed, is a farrago [confused mixture] of misinformation and doctrinaire distortions.” Considering that the Constitution of the Athenians was the centrepiece of the 170 or so constitutions attributed to Aristotle or his students, we cannot expect a higher standard of accuracy for the Constitution of the Thessalians. Obviously, Aristotle’s comments on Thessalian klēroi should not be accepted without corroborating evidence, which in this case is totally lacking. [George Huxley. “On Aristotle’s Historical Methods”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Volume 13, issue 2 (Summer 1972). Pages 157–158; Eugene Napoleion Tigerstedt. The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, volume I. (Stockholm studies in history of literature). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965. Page 286; Thomas W. Africa. Science and the State in Greece and Rome. New York: Wiley, 1968. Page 99]
Even if we were to consider Aristotle (ca. 384–322 BCE) to have been a reliable historian, this fragment of Aristotle—from an anonymous scholiast or commentator—is highly questionable. Sławomir Sprawski wrote “Almost every sentence of the scholion triggered discussion and led to attempts to make emendations to the text. Even at first glance it is not hard to notice that the mention of Aleuas’ reforms does not particularly fit the remaining parts of the scholion … This incoherence in the text of the scholion has long bothered scholars. One of the first commentators on this passage, the German scholar Ludwig Preller, reached the conclusion that the text is damaged, and part of it must have been lost.” Sprawski concluded “It is hard to resist the impression that the so-called reform of Aleuas does not fit with the reality of Thessaly in the late 6th and early 5th century.” [Sławomir Sprawski. “Remarks on Aristotle’s Thettalon Politeia”. Electrum: studia z historii starożytne, Volume 19 (2012). Pages 141 & 146]
Furthermore, the term fragment as used by modern classical scholars is misleading. In this case, it refers to a quotation from another ancient work (Schol. Vat. ad Eurip. Rhes. v311), which is an anonymous scholion or commentary on Euripides’ tragedy Rhesos This play—a work of fiction set at the legendary siege of Troy and whose title character is a mythological Thracian king—is hardly a work in which one would expect to find any reference to the supposedly historical reforms of Aleuas in Thessaly! The invariable quandary about quotations from secondary authors is did the secondary author accurately quote the original author’s own words or did he or she paraphrase or summarize in their own words perhaps in a misleading, muddled, or inaccurate fashion. In this particular case, the answer clearly is that there is something seriously wrong with this text.
In conclusion, I personally consider this so-called fragment of Aristotle to be totally worthless as evidence for the social structure of ancient Thessaly.
[3]↩ Modern scholars have dated this incident to a number of possible Athenian campaigns including:
ca. 476 BCE when Kimon captured Eion.
ca. 424 BCE when Thoukydides lost Amphipolis to the Lakedaimonian [Spartan] general Brasidas, but saved Eion.
ca. 422 BCE when Kleon was based in Eion and sent out envoys to Athens’ northern allies requesting aid against Brasidas, who held Amphipolis.
[4]↩ During the bloody reign of the oligarchs in Athens, Athenian hippeis (cavalrymen) patroled on horseback without shields, but at night they walked along the walls on guard duty carrying their aspides (large heavy shields). [Xenophon. Hellēnika 2.4.24]
[5]↩ According to Sextus Julius Frontinus (4.1.6), Philip permitted his cavalrymen to have only one servant each. Frontinus (floruit late 1st Century CE) is almost certainly referring to Philip II of Makedonia. This restriction may also have applied to the Thessalian cavalry in Philip’s army. However, prior to Philip, many wealthy Thessalians most likely took several servants with them.
[6]↩ Robert E. Gaebel. Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 2002. Pages 51 and 48–49.
[7]↩ The Olympic Victors at http://www.fhw.gr/olympics/ancient/en/db.html
[8]↩ When applied to cavalry, the term phalangēdon did not refer to a tight, closely packed formation of the sort that an infantry phalanx would have employed. Instead, it referred to a less compact arrangement of cavalry, who were nonetheless still deployed in an imposing and recognizable formation. The closeness of the troopers to each other no doubt varied according to the terrain and tactical circumstances. On the other hand, true skirmishers, according to Polybios, fought as dispersed individuals without utilizing organized ranks.
[9]↩ According to Ailianos Taktikos, an individual named Jason was credited with originating the rhombus formation for Thessalian cavalry. Most modern writers assume that he was referring to the tyrant Jason of Pherai (ruled ca. 385–370 BCE). However, in two later chapters of his book, Ailianos attributed the origin of the cavalry rhombus to the Thessalian Ileon, after whom the ilē (squadron) supposedly got its name. Ailianos added that Jason, the anēr (man, husband, lover) of Medeia, improved upon the cavalry rhombus. Ailianos is referring to the legendary Thessalian Jason of Iolkos, the leader of the Argonauts, and to his wife or lover Medeia, the fabled daughter of King Aietes of Kolkhis! Since the mythological Jason of Iolkos is said to have improved upon Ileon’s invention, Ileon himself must also be a mythological figure. As a result, any connection on the part of the historical Jason of Pherai with the invention of the cavalry rhombus is problematic. [Ailianos Taktikos. 18–19, 43, 45]
FOOTNOTES
[1]↩ Well, I intended it to be a brief outline, but things got out of control! Unfortunately, due to chronic illness, I have been unable to finish these pages in a timely fashion.
[2]↩ A fragment of Aristotle (fr. 498)—via a scholiast (commentator) and purporting to be from Aristotle’s Constitution of the Thessalians—stated that Aloas (i.e. Aleuas) created klēroi (allotments, generally for military settlers) each supplying 40 horsemen and 80 hoplites. Some modern scholars amend the 80 hoplites to 80 peltasts. However, Xenophon did not mention Thessalian peltasts in his descriptions of the Thessalian military of ca. 375 BCE. Instead, Xenophon (Hellēnika 6.1.8–9) mentioned 6,000 Thessalian cavalry and more than 10,000 Thessalian hoplites and noted that numerous peltasts were supplied by Thessaly’s surrounding subject-allies and not by the Thessalians themselves. Of course, this may not have been the case in the era of Aleuas if such a person ever existed. Be that as it may, there would need to have been only 150 of these super klēroi in all of Thessaly to supply 6,000 horsemen and 12,000 hoplites. Consequently, some modern writers theorize that there were roughly 150 enormous Thessalian estates owned by a top level elite, whom these modern writers often call barons.
The social situation in the Greek Archaic Age (ca. 800–500 BCE) is cloaked in legendary tales and fables and is largely unknowable with any degree of certainty. As for the Greek Classical Age (ca. 500–323 BCE), I personally doubt the existence of roughly 150 enormous Thessalian estates owned by barons. There was unquestionably a top level elite of extremely wealthy aristocrats in classical Thessaly, but I doubt that they owned most of the land. A feudal social structure in Thessaly would have been unique in classical Greece, so I would really expect that other ancient authors would have mentioned such an atypical society and that there would be some support for this theory in the ancient inscriptions of Thessaly.
Aleuas was a legendary perhaps mythological figure. If he was a real person, he problably lived in the Greek Archaic Age. Despite these doubts about the existence of Aleuas, the Thessalian klēroi attributed to Aleuas could still possibly be historical though to the best of my knowledge there are no ancient inscriptions supporting the existence of Thessalian klēroi A klēros is generally assigned to a single individual for that individual’s own sustenance. It is possible that Aristotle or the scholiast substituted the well known term klēroi in place of an obscure Thessalian term for large estates. If the super klēroi attributed to Aleuas existed in Thessaly, perhaps the term was applied to a group of homesteads each held individually by 40 horsemen and 80 hoplites organized into a military association for the purpose of levying troops. However, I readily admit that this theory is just as speculative as is the baron theory. It does, however, have the advantage of conforming to known Greek societal and military organizations such as the Athenian demes (townships), phylai (civic “tribes” functioning as administrative and military corporate bodies), and phratriai (corporate “brotherhoods” originally kinship groups from a particular district).
All of the above is probably of only theoretical interest as Aristotle—a great philosopher and scientist—is not considered a reliable historian by many modern scholars. E. N. Tigerstedt wrote “Aristole is no historian and he has little or no idea of historical criticism”. George Huxley commented “Tigerstedt specifically objects to Aristotle’s combination of information from primary sources with antiquarian fables and political inventions”! T. W. Africa asserted “As a historian, Aristotle was careless and opinionated, and the celebrated history of the Athenian constitution, which he or his students composed, is a farrago [confused mixture] of misinformation and doctrinaire distortions.” Considering that the Constitution of the Athenians was the centrepiece of the 170 or so constitutions attributed to Aristotle or his students, we cannot expect a higher standard of accuracy for the Constitution of the Thessalians. Obviously, Aristotle’s comments on Thessalian klēroi should not be accepted without corroborating evidence, which in this case is totally lacking. [George Huxley. “On Aristotle’s Historical Methods”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, Volume 13, issue 2 (Summer 1972). Pages 157–158; Eugene Napoleion Tigerstedt. The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, volume I. (Stockholm studies in history of literature). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965. Page 286; Thomas W. Africa. Science and the State in Greece and Rome. New York: Wiley, 1968. Page 99]
Even if we were to consider Aristotle (ca. 384–322 BCE) to have been a reliable historian, this fragment of Aristotle—from an anonymous scholiast or commentator—is highly questionable. Sławomir Sprawski wrote “Almost every sentence of the scholion triggered discussion and led to attempts to make emendations to the text. Even at first glance it is not hard to notice that the mention of Aleuas’ reforms does not particularly fit the remaining parts of the scholion … This incoherence in the text of the scholion has long bothered scholars. One of the first commentators on this passage, the German scholar Ludwig Preller, reached the conclusion that the text is damaged, and part of it must have been lost.” Sprawski concluded “It is hard to resist the impression that the so-called reform of Aleuas does not fit with the reality of Thessaly in the late 6th and early 5th century.” [Sławomir Sprawski. “Remarks on Aristotle’s Thettalon Politeia”. Electrum: studia z historii starożytne, Volume 19 (2012). Pages 141 & 146]
Furthermore, the term fragment as used by modern classical scholars is misleading. In this case, it refers to a quotation from another ancient work (Schol. Vat. ad Eurip. Rhes. v311), which is an anonymous scholion or commentary on Euripides’ tragedy Rhesos This play—a work of fiction set at the legendary siege of Troy and whose title character is a mythological Thracian king—is hardly a work in which one would expect to find any reference to the supposedly historical reforms of Aleuas in Thessaly! The invariable quandary about quotations from secondary authors is did the secondary author accurately quote the original author’s own words or did he or she paraphrase or summarize in their own words perhaps in a misleading, muddled, or inaccurate fashion. In this particular case, the answer clearly is that there is something seriously wrong with this text.
In conclusion, I personally consider this so-called fragment of Aristotle to be totally worthless as evidence for the social structure of ancient Thessaly.
[3]↩ Modern scholars have dated this incident to a number of possible Athenian campaigns including:
ca. 476 BCE when Kimon captured Eion.
ca. 424 BCE when Thoukydides lost Amphipolis to the Lakedaimonian [Spartan] general Brasidas, but saved Eion.
ca. 422 BCE when Kleon was based in Eion and sent out envoys to Athens’ northern allies requesting aid against Brasidas, who held Amphipolis.
[4]↩ During the bloody reign of the oligarchs in Athens, Athenian hippeis (cavalrymen) patroled on horseback without shields, but at night they walked along the walls on guard duty carrying their aspides (large heavy shields). [Xenophon. Hellēnika 2.4.24]
[5]↩ According to Sextus Julius Frontinus (4.1.6), Philip permitted his cavalrymen to have only one servant each. Frontinus (floruit late 1st Century CE) is almost certainly referring to Philip II of Makedonia. This restriction may also have applied to the Thessalian cavalry in Philip’s army. However, prior to Philip, many wealthy Thessalians most likely took several servants with them.
[6]↩ Robert E. Gaebel. Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 2002. Pages 51 and 48–49.
[7]↩ The Olympic Victors at http://www.fhw.gr/olympics/ancient/en/db.html
[8]↩ When applied to cavalry, the term phalangēdon did not refer to a tight, closely packed formation of the sort that an infantry phalanx would have employed. Instead, it referred to a less compact arrangement of cavalry, who were nonetheless still deployed in an imposing and recognizable formation. The closeness of the troopers to each other no doubt varied according to the terrain and tactical circumstances. On the other hand, true skirmishers, according to Polybios, fought as dispersed individuals without utilizing organized ranks.
[9]↩ According to Ailianos Taktikos, an individual named Jason was credited with originating the rhombus formation for Thessalian cavalry. Most modern writers assume that he was referring to the tyrant Jason of Pherai (ruled ca. 385–370 BCE). However, in two later chapters of his book, Ailianos attributed the origin of the cavalry rhombus to the Thessalian Ileon, after whom the ilē (squadron) supposedly got its name. Ailianos added that Jason, the anēr (man, husband, lover) of Medeia, improved upon the cavalry rhombus. Ailianos is referring to the legendary Thessalian Jason of Iolkos, the leader of the Argonauts, and to his wife or lover Medeia, the fabled daughter of King Aietes of Kolkhis! Since the mythological Jason of Iolkos is said to have improved upon Ileon’s invention, Ileon himself must also be a mythological figure. As a result, any connection on the part of the historical Jason of Pherai with the invention of the cavalry rhombus is problematic. [Ailianos Taktikos. 18–19, 43, 45]
No comments:
Post a Comment