Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings Dakkites,

I am doing some work on the early successor period (Diadochi) and had some questions about the Lamian War. This was a revolt by the Greeks after the death of Alexander. This revolt was fought and land and at sea. After initial victories for the Greeks, Antipater, Craterus, and Leonnatus were able to defeat them at the Battle of Crannon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamian_War

https://www.britannica.com/event/Lamian-War

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_lamian.html

Here is the sources:
Diodorus Siculus 18.16.4-18.17.5 (Loeb trans)
"About the same time Craterus also departed from Cilicia and arrived in Macedonia to reinforce Antipater and to make good the defeats that the Macedonians had suffered. He brought with him six thousand foot soldiers from those who had crossed into Asia with Alexander and four thousand from those who had been enlisted on the march, one thousand Persian bowmen and slingers, and fifteen hundred horsemen. Entering Thessaly and freely yielding the chief command to Antipater, he shared a camp with him beside the Peneius River. Including those who had been under Leonnatus, there were gathered together in all more than forty thousand heavy armed infantry, three thousand bowmen and slingers, and five thousand cavalry.

The Greeks who were encamped against them at this time were far inferior in numbers; for many of them, despising the enemy because of their former good fortune, had gone away to their own cities to p61look after their private affairs. Since many soldiers were absent from duty for this reason, there remained in camp only twenty-five thousand foot soldiers and thirty-five hundred cavalry. They placed their chief hope of victory in the latter, because the men were brave and the ground was level.

At last Antipater began to draw up his forces each day and challenge the Greeks to battle. For a while these waited for their men to return from their cities, but since time was pressing, they were forced to come out and stake all. They drew up their lines, placing the cavalry in front of the phalanx of infantry, since they were eager to decide the battle by means of this arm. When the cavalry had met in battle and the Thessalian horsemen were getting the advantage because of their valour, Antipater led out his own phalanx and, rushing upon the infantry of the enemy, began to make great slaughter. The Greeks, since they were not able to withstand the weight and number of the enemy, immediately withdrew to the rough ground, carefully keeping their ranks. Thus they occupied the higher ground and easily repulsed the Macedonians thanks to their possession of the superior position. Although the Greek cavalry had gained the advantage, as soon as the horsemen learned of the withdrawal of the infantry, they at once retired toward them. Then, after such a combat as I have described, the battle was broken off, as the scales of victory swung in favour of the Macedonians. More than five hundred of the Greeks were killed in the battle, and one hundred and thirty of the Macedonians."

I am assuming Antipater and Craterus troops were using the standard Macedonian set-up that Phillip/Alexander's army used in the previous few decades. The same Macedonian Sarissa Phalanx blocks, Hypaspists, archers/slingers, and light cavalry. I have a feeling Companion cavalry was not in use, due to the challenge they faced with the Thessalian forces.

However, I am less certain about the Greek forces. Since the term Phalanx is used by both armies, was the Greek army composed of Hoplites, peltasts, and psiloi of the older Greek city-states? Did the infantry fight using the same methods found in the Theban hegemony that Phillip had defeated 4 decades earlier? Or is it more likely that the Greek city-states had adopted the new Macedonian style of fighting using Sarissa armed pike blocks? The sources are a bit frustrating on this point.

Can anyone point me to some additional sources on this subject? From what I can find, it looks like the Greeks in the Lamian War are assumed to fight in the standard Classical Greek Hoplite fashion, since standard Hoplites still seemed to be part of Alexander's Army as well. Therefore, the Hoplite style of fighting had not completely gone out of style. On the other hand, they had been defeated decisively and integrated into Phillip/Alexander's empire so it seems likely that they could have adopted the Macedonian style as well.

Your thoughts?

The Macedonian forces did continue to use the Alexandrian model with both Asiatics and Macedonian phalanxs arranged 16 deep, I am not aware of any mention of the Hypaspists during the campaign and a contingent of the Macedonian cavalry were themselves likely to be Thessalian as the forces of the three Macedonian armies list 3600 horse before the battle of Crannon (even after loosing the cavalry battle under Leonnatus) and Diodorus states that 5000 Macedonian cavalry took part. This would not be surprising as the Thessalian cavalry had been an integral part of the Alexandrian army and had achieved some repute as the second best cavalry after the Companions. Furthermore the leadership of Thessaly originally supported Antipator against the revolt and only switched sides later. Due to the total dominance of the Thessalian cavalry in all actions as well as the fact they fought exclusively with hand weapons it would appear that neither Compainion (as they would have been mentioned specifically) nor large numbers of Asiatic horse took part, also of note is that there were likely to have been large numbers of prodromoi but probably not sarissophoroi.

For the Greek rebellion forces it is difficult to determine exactly a large part of the combined army were mercenaries that had left the employ of the Macedonians in Asia (against Alexanders' orders), these troops were armed in the traditional panoply of the Hoplite and were also likely to include a number of light armed troops (peltasts and slingers being most common) the rest of the States army was likely to have been a citizen levy which would fight as Hoplites not Phalagnites. Whilst sources do not specify for this battle we know that levied Greek troops answering to the Macedonians mostly took the field with their native armaments (Cretan archers, Agrianian javelin men etc.).

There exists little evidence to support the idea that the Greeks adopted the Macedonian model of warfare wholesale, we know that fighting in the third century they were still using Hoplite phalanxes (as spears are mentioned in various texts as being 8-12 feet long as opposed to the 16 foot sarrissa) and the employment of Peltasts and heavy Peltasts was common. In fact the only changes I am aware of came after the Celtic invasion of around 270, when many Greeks adopted a lighter shield and operated as a cross between Hoplite and Peltasts (maybe what the foot Companions were equipped like?) and later in 208 when the Achaean League adopted the Macedonian Phalanx by decree of Philopoemen as Plutarch relates; Philopoemen ‘persuaded them to adopt long pike and heavy shield instead of spear and buckler, to protect their bodies with helmets and breastplates and greaves, and to practice stationary and steadfast fighting instead of the nimble movements of light-armed troops’.

As for sources for the Lamian War the only other primary I am aware of is Pausanias, although on the formation of the League against the Macedonians there still exist the records from the Athenian Agora although they are in pretty poor condition (they do however list the States that Athens approached and who signed on as well as tax info for the raising of the fleet) there is also a source that describes the mercenaries of the League Army (there hiring at least) but I cannot remember who it was by.

Very informative. Thank you.

This was especially illuminating...

In fact the only changes I am aware of came after the Celtic invasion of around 270, when many Greeks adopted a lighter shield and operated as a cross between Hoplite and Peltasts (maybe what the foot Companions were equipped like?) and later in 208 when the Achaean League adopted the Macedonian Phalanx by decree of Philopoemen as Plutarch relates; Philopoemen ‘persuaded them to adopt long pike and heavy shield instead of spear and buckler, to protect their bodies with helmets and breastplates and greaves, and to practice stationary and steadfast fighting instead of the nimble movements of light-armed troops’.