Macedonian Phalangite vs Persian Warrior: Alexander confronts the Achaemenids, 334–331 BC (Combat)

Planned on giving two and a half out of 5, but settled for 2, as half stars aren't an option. Considering how some award 4 or 5 stars, simply for this being an Osprey title, lol I expect an eventual average rating.For a work from the Combat series, it read more like a slimmed down Campaign title. If you have J.F.C. Fuller's The Generalship of Alexander the Great - listed in the bibliography - or any other recent works, you won't find anything new in Macedonian Phalangite versus Persian Warrior. The Osprey from 2006, Macedonian Warrior: Alexander's elite infantryman, had more information concerning the breakdown of the phalanx and training than this title and even less so concerning Persian infantry. I was expecting something like Lindsay Powell's Roman Soldier versus Germanic Warrior, with possibly photos of re-enactors, instead most of the images are from Wikimedia.The author did raise the possibility of Iphicrates' reforms increasing the lenghth of the hoplite's spear from 6 cubits to 12, making it the same length as sarissae wielded by Philip's and Alexander's phalangites, explaining why they had difficulty facing Greek mercenaries in contrast with Persians, but didn't elaborate.Christopher Matthew's An Invincible Beast: Understanding the Hellenistic Pike Phalanx in Action isn't in the bibliography, but the text in the plate concerning the sarissa , Macedonian lochagos, might as well have been lifted from it:Sarissae were transported in halves and connected before battle via a coupling device, only one of which survives. This made transportation much easier and also meant that the shafts were stronger and bent less in combat. Replacement of broken halves was probably also easier; cornel wood was common in Greece and in coastal Anatolia but not available in the inland regions of the Persian Empire.No one knows what the tube was intended for, but it was definitely not a coupling device. Even if it were one, why is it that only a single one has been found? Pike shafts were tapered, so wouldn't sag at the ends, and if produced in two halves, the connecting point would've been a liability.

As another reviewer has noted, this Osprey Combat Series book could perhaps have been better placed in the Osprey Campaign Series. It is a competent retelling of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire, with emphasis on the key battles of the Granicus River, Issus, and Gaugamela. The general narrative of the three battles is very reasonable, considering the remove of time and the many conflicts in the surviving accounts.That said, the surviving sources just don't seem to lend themselves to a detailed reconstruction of individualized combat between Macedonian and Persian warriors. The author draws on a variety of sources, but two thousand years on, this may not be a reasonable expectation. The author does include a good selection of ancient and modern illustrations, photographs, and battle maps. Cautiously recommended to students of the period.

This examination of the Macedonian and Persian military systems focuses upon the three great set-piece battles of Alexander's invasion of the Persian Empire: Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela. A careful and well-reasoned analysis, combined with a judicious use of the ancient sources, results in a sterling work of military historical scholarship.

As other's have stated, much of this book deals with Alexander's battles which are covered in other Osprey's and a myriad of other works. The descriptions are well done, but the author's curious fascination with Curtius account of Issus makes for some "debatable" conclusions. Of course, debatable conclusions are always necessary in Alexander's battles, given the vagaries and conflicts of sources. Sadly the Osprey format does not really give room to flesh out the conclusions. Also the focus on the phalangite vs. the Persian infantryman behind "spara walls" is a difficult to pinpoint actual occurrence in Alexander's battles. Frontline Persian infantry simply were not present in large numbers in his battles- other than the difficult to pinpoint kardakes. Of course masses of levies are attested to- but these troops simply never engaged a phalanx as they melted away in every battle. So some of the conclusions seem muddy to me.The illustrations are nice especially the Peter Dennis ones. I found the depiction of the small (45 cm) pelta shield to need more references as this size shield is unusual. Although later "peltast phalangites" of the Successor period may have used small shields, but the usual concept is the Macedonian shield was just a rimless aspis- based on the few visual sources we have. (One image is included on page 14 which surely depicts a phalangite with the normal sized shield, with no mention of the incongruity).Ultimately the concept of phalangite vs. Persian infantry is difficult to pinpoint since the sources mostly focus on Persian cavalry vs. Macedonian forces- that may have been a more successful presentation, because bending the emphasis to create the visual matchup the book demands is somewhat a stretch. Ultimately the phalanx vs. the chariots is a useful description.Did the Immortals number 10,000 at Issus? Did they use large wicker shields? It seems the general consensus of other writers in the field is no. A lot of this can kind of be washed through because of the vagueness of the sources.Sadly the book completely skips the most successful Persian action against the phalanx- that being the battle at the Persian Gates- where the Persians finally came up with a way to out right defeat the Macedonians by using the passes to force multiply. Ultimately the Persian defenders were surrounded and overwhelmed at the gates, but it is unfortunate that this most interesting battles between Alexander' infantry and die-hard Persians who fought bravely is ignored.

As others have noted, there is relatively little information in the book relating to the Macedonian Phalangite vs Persian Warrior, in regards of equipment or training. Instead of a summary of a few battles, intended to illustrate how these opponents fought, it might have been better to include details of their equipment and how it was manufactured, for example more information about the styles of helmet the Macedonians wore, their armour, and their sarissae. Of course there’s a limit of what we can know, as the sources are slim and there is a fairly scarce archaeological record, but there’s been considerable work on recreating the armour and weapons.One thing that stands out, is that the artwork, whilst more than competent in execution, tends to show the sarissa being used in an unlikely fashion, at the height of the shoulder. This hold would be impractical with a shield, and seems to be influenced by 16th/17th century pikemen (who didn’t generally use shields). There’s even a picture of two phalangites from an ancient relief wielding their sarissae at waist height, which would be far more practical and much less fatiguing, in the book, but not used as a source for the illustrations.