A gem of a treatise

Deploying a Roman Army, my book on Arrian’s Ektaxis kat’ Alanôn (“Deployment Against the Alans”), was recently reviewed in Ancient Warfare magazine (Vol. XVI, Issue 1) by the editor, Murray Dahm, who noted that “the Array Against the Alans” (as he prefers to call it) “has been dealt with in these pages before (see AW 13.4)”.
Sure enough, in that very issue from 2020 (pictured here), anonymous contributor “Tacticus” presented his take on Arrian’s treatise.

Tacticus paints a rather pessimistic picture of the Ektaxis, and overstates the translator’s challenge by claiming that the manuscript is “riddled with lacunae (gaps)” and that “various modern translators fill these gaps with whatever they think might have been there”. This is a parody of the true state of affairs. He provides no bibliography and, although he credits no source for his information, some of the errors he has made suggest that his knowledge of the Ektaxis comes, at least partly, from the deeply flawed précis that Anthony Dent published in History Today in 1974. Unfortunately, this means that his explanation of Arrian’s treatise falls prey to some of the usual misunderstandings (and some novel ones), once again demonstrating why a new translation and commentary was desperately needed.

Arrian’s Army

In his first section (“Orders for the March”), he has missed the fact (emphasized by Ritterling in his 1902 publication) that the entire vanguard consists of horsemen. Moreover, he seems to imagine that each named body of troops constituted an entire unit, rather than the detachments that they clearly are. Thus, he interprets Arrian’s “Petraian horse archers” as “the cohors III Ulpia Patraeorum [sic] milliaria [sic] equitata sagittariorum (horse and foot archers from Petra)”, when it is quite clear that they are simply the mounted component of the cohort. He makes the same error when he assumes that the cohortes I and IIII Raetorum equitatae are present in the vanguard in full force, when it must only be their mounted component who are here.

Arrian says that the vanguard-closers are “the Celtic horsemen”, whom Tacticus (following Dent here) assumes to be the ala II Gallorum, but (as Ritterling realized in his 1902 publication) these are actually the mounted component of the cohors I Germanorum miliaria equitata. Arrian provides an additional clue here, when he says that “a centurion should lead them, just as in the camp”. He is alluding to the fact that the mounted component has been deployed separately from the main cohort, which no doubt remained at base under their tribune, while the horsemen joined Arrian’s expeditionary force under the command of a legionary centurion, seconded for this purpose (a situation that was by no means unusual).

Tacticus claims (again echoing Dent) that “they were followed by allied Armenian foot archers”, but there is no sign of them in Arrian’s text; nor would such troops be welcome here, trailing behind the mounted vanguard. Instead, Arrian introduces a new section with the words “Let the infantry be drawn up behind them”. This is naturally the beginning of the main column, but (like Dent) Tacticus includes them in the vanguard. Again, although Arrian has clearly announced that this section of the marching column comprises only infantry, Tacticus assumes that, for example, Arrian’s “Italians” are the entire cohors I Italica equitata (whom he, incidentally, identifies as the cohors I Italica voluntariorum civium Romanorum, which is possible, although it should be acknowledged that there was also a cohors I Italica miliaria stationed in the region). He also assumes that “each unit should be headed by attached archers”, whereas Arrian actually specifies that the block of infantry should be led by their massed archers.

The men of Arrian’s two legions formed the main part of the marching column, preceded by three important elements. First, “the picked horsemen” (Arrian’s own equites singulares, drawn from the auxiliary cavalry of Cappadocia); second, “the horsemen from the phalanx” (namely, the legionary cavalry, whom Tacticus boldly counts as 200 men, although the sole legionary legate accompanying Arrian would have brought only his own 120 cavalry); and third, the catapults.

The akontistai

Then Arrian says “Let the javelin-men be drawn up in front of the standard of the infantrymen”. Tacticus, by contrast, has the standards in front of the three above-noted elements; and behind all of them, he has “legionary lanciarii and the legionary officers”, before the main body of the legions. Dent made a similar (though not identical) mistake. The legionary officers actually march with the standard (surely the aquila or legionary eagle), and the standard is preceded by men whom Arrian calls akontistai (“javelin-men”). These are the men about whom Murray Dahm (in his Ancient Warfare review) wrote that he “would have liked more discussion”. However, as I point out in my commentary, “the identity of these men in Arrian’s marching column is not clear”. Previous suggestions have included “light infantry companies of both legions” (Dent), Arrian’s pedites singulares (Speidel), a body of velites (Belfiore), and unidentified “spearmen” (Brian Campbell). Since Tacticus later refers to half of each legion as lanciarii, “armed with the lighter dual-purpose lancea”, he seems to envisage Arrian’s akontistai as having been drawn from these men. Murray Dahm follows suit, referring to “lanciarii (called akontistai, ‘javelin-men’)”.

However, I have suggested a far subtler identification. Their position “in front of the standard” recalls Caesar’s antesignani (whom I discussed in 2017, in Ancient Warfare Vol. XI, Issue 4). It may well be that Arrian’s akontistai were legionaries who were similarly “chosen for speed”, as Caesar writes, and expediti (“unencumbered” by baggage), so that they were ready for immediate action. There really isn’t any more we can say about them. Tacticus writes that “behind the legions came more allied troops” — “more”, because he mistakenly thought that there had already been Armenian allies in the vanguard. Not so. Arrian is quite clear: “Let the allied force be drawn up behind the hoplite force”, the former being a quaint term for the provincial militia, the latter for the legions. It must be said that Tacticus here dodged one of Dent’s many errors, in realizing that Arrian’s “Apulian infantry”, who came behind the militia, were in fact the cohors Apula civium Romanorum (although he chooses to spell it Apuleia). Arrian elsewhere indicates that this cohort had supplied only 200 men, and Tacticus is surely mistaken to assume that it must have been grossly under-strength; the cohors III Augusta Cyrenaica, for example, also supplied only a detachment. Finally for this section, the “cavalry from the ala II Gallorum and Italian horsemen” whom Tacticus has escorting this part of the column were actually the former ala in its entirety (for some reason, he thought that the bulk of the unit were up ahead with the vanguard) and the mounted component of the cohors I Italica equitata, which he assumed were marching in their entirety ahead of the legions.

Arrian’s Battle

Tacticus’ version of Arrian’s battle array (pictured here) is broadly correct, although it isn’t clear why he labels the cavalry contingents as “ad hoc” units.

Arrian refers to “all of the cavalry, drawn up in cavalry squadrons and eight companies”, in order to draw a distinction between the four alae at his disposal (namely, the ala II Ulpia Auriana, the ala I Augusta Gemina Colonorum, the ala II Claudia Gallorum, and the ala I Ulpia Dacorum) and the mounted components drawn from his part-mounted cohorts. Four of these cohorts had supplied only their horsemen: cohortes I Raetorum equitata, I Germanorum miliaria equitata, III Ulpia Petraeorum miliaria equitata, and IV Raetorum equitata. Another three were present at full strength: cohortes I Ituraeorum miliaria equitata, I Bosporanorum equitata, and I Numidarum equitata. And two others (cohortes I Italica miliaria equitata and III Augusta Cyrenaica equitata) had provided detachments, which — brigaded together — made an eighth cavalry contingent. Also, Arrian implies (by the sequence of his text) that the catapults formed a line behind the infantry archers and in front of the cavalry contingents, thus keeping the cavalry well clear of them. And, incidentally, it is likely that Tacticus’s “200 infantry guardsmen [who] acted as Arrian’s personal reserve” were actually his pedites singulares.

If the marauding Alans of the title were to approach Arrian’s army, the legions were intended to halt their advance by presenting a hedge of spear-points, co-ordinated with a barrage of missiles. In Tacticus’ version, “the first three ranks were to lock shields and press their shoulders into them to prevent a breakthrough while the front rank stabbed at horses and riders without pause. (...) The fourth rank were to do something else, but we don’t know what, because of one of the many gaps in the surviving text”. Ironically, there is no lacuna here! Let us read Arrian’s version: “the first three ranks, closing up their shields and bracing their shoulders, should receive the assault as resolutely as possible, in the most compact formation, pressing against each other as firmly as possible. The fourth rank should overshoot the rest; and the third rank should stab or hurl their lances mercilessly at the horses and the men”.

Finally, Tacticus makes no mention of what is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Ektaxis; namely, the curious archaizing, often quaint terminology that Arrian employs. Why does he call the cohors I Germanorum equitata “the Celtic horsemen”? Or the ala I Ulpia Dacorum “the squadron of the Getae”? Why does he call a pilum a “lance with a long iron part that comes to a slender point”? Why does he refer to the provincial militia as allies and the legions as phalanxes of hoplites? I believe the answer lies in Arrian’s claim to be “the new Xenophon”, for his entire vocabulary harks back to the fourth century BC, a time when anybody referring to a detachment of the cohors III Augusta Cyrenaica might have resorted to a circumlocution like “those of the Cyrenaeans who are present”.