Its hard to know what the cavalry would have done. Xenephon is
pretty
clear that they stayed at a distance and fired arrows in this case.
Clearly you disagree but it seems to me that if the Persians were
beyond Cretans' bow range then the Cretans can't have been that
worried about being caught by a cavalry charge before they could
retire through the phalanx. Certainly cavalry did ride down psiloi
if
they caught them in the open. What I was suggesting wasn't really
about this however - I was arguing that the Persians's bows
outranged
the Cretans (which is what Xenephon said) hence they withdraw inside
the phalanx. Note that there is no mention of the Rhodian slingers
being driven in by the Persian cavalry when they are used.
> (besides having the depth of the phalanx to shoot over, thus the
rang
> comment). Indirect fire wasn't an practiced art in ancient armies.
I can't let that go however!
Early Persian Sparabara infantry formed up 10 ranks deep with the
front man protected by a large shield and the next 9 ranks armed
with
bows. Neo-Assyrian infantry also formed up 10 deep with 5 ranks of
spear and shield armed infantry supported by 5 ranks of bowmen. The
Athenian hoplites at Plataea probably drew up 8 deep and were
supported by archers behind. Thematic Byzantine skoutatoi could from
up with 8 ranks of pike supported by archers behind. I still say the
reason the Cretans couldn't shoot was that they were out of range
anyway not that they were behind the phalanx! Xenephon says later
in 'The Persian Expedition': 'The Persians use large bows, and so
all
the arrows of theirs which were picked up came in useful to the
Cretans, who constantly used the enemy's arrows and practised longrange
shooting with a high trajectory.'
Powered by hypermail