The Ancients - Caracalla's Macedonian Phalanx

Episode Date: November 21, 2021

Alexander the Great and Caracalla. One often considered among the most successful military commanders of all time, the other, one of the worst emperors of Ancient Rome. So is it possible that the latter modelled himself and his army on the former. In this second episode with Dr Alex Imrie, we return to the story of Caracalla to explore the evidence for his Macedonian Phalanx, a formation of men purportedly used in his invasion of the Parthian Empire. Dr Alex Imrie, from the University of Edinburgh, is an expert on the Severan Dynasty and the author of The Antonine Constitution: An Edict for the Caracallan Empire.Alex's Twitter: @AlexImrie23Tristan's Twitter/Instagram: @ancientstristan

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes, and if you would like The Ancient ad-free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe. It's The Ancients on History Hit. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host. And in today's episode, well, we are talking once again about the Emperor Caracalla, but we're also going to be talking about Alexander the Great,

because Caracalla, he had quite an obsession with this Macedonian king. There's even a story that in his eastern campaign against the Parthians during the later years of his reign, he created a unit, a unit which he equipped with Alexandrian weapons, Alexandrian arms and armor, the Sarissa pike, and labeled them Alexander's phalanx. But how much can we believe of this story? What's the truth and what is likely to be the fiction? Well, joining me to talk through all of this, I was delighted to get back on the show Dr Alex Imrie from the University of Edinburgh. Alex, he knows all things Caracalla. He was on a podcast recently all about the reign of Caracalla, the Antonine constitution, the assassination of

his younger brother Gaeta, and so much more. But without further ado, to talk all about Caracalla and the Macedonian phalanx, here's Alex. Alex, great to have you back on the podcast. Wonderful to be back. Thanks very much for having me again. You are very welcome indeed. I mean, we talked last time about, let's say, the rise of Caracalla, his horrific murder of his brother and what happens afterwards. But now we're focusing on him going east and this bizarre physical link with the military aspect of Alexander the Great. Yeah. I mean, the vast majority of Caracal's life after the murder of Geta is spent effectively

in a military context. He's either travelling, levying forces, during which he apparently has a great old time wandering through Macedon and Thrace levying phalangites, and then ends up warring against Parthia with a massive expeditionary army. It's a boy's own adventure tale if it weren't being done by one of history's sort of most violent villains. And so why does he decide, after killing Geta, after spending some time in the capital, why does he decide to do these travels in the eastern Mediterranean and to ultimately campaign in the east?

So it depends really on who you read. If you read somebody like Herodian, Herodian says that the murder of Geta gave him such terrible mental instability, effectively PTSD one could imagine, that he felt he had to remove himself from the capital. He just simply wasn't happy in Rome, that wasn't where he wanted to govern. And given his relative unpopularity with the Senate, you can almost forgive him that as well. It's not an environment that really plays to his suit and so this seems to be a way of him guaranteeing the loyalty of the army by keeping them moving giving them a singular focus and yet it allows him as well to essentially conduct an imperial tour by stealth going through a lot of the provinces and making sure that his regime is solid and stable there. So we're tempted to view

it just as this military flight of fancy. But I think it contains probably a couple other political objectives in there. And, you know, which Roman emperor is not going to benefit from a campaign against Parthia really at this point in time? Trajan has set the standard with the eastern expanse of the empire. And apart from Hadrian, there are emperors thereafter who are looking to push that envelope and to repeat that kind of success. And Caracalla is no exception.

And one of the places he visits as he heads east in his empire tour of the eastern Mediterranean is again, this time rather infamously, Alexandria. Yes, Alexandria. So Caracalla has followed a route that some would suggest maybe evokes Alexander the Great's campaigning route,

although that is up for massive debate, and ends up at the close the winter of 215, arriving at the city of Alexandria. Now you would think this would be the pinnacle for somebody like Caracalla. He has idolized Alexander the Great since his youth. He's been brought up with him as the symbol of power and this thing that's very useful for Roman emperors and their own self-presentation. And he's there with his army. He's there in full pomp and ceremony. And yet when he leaves in around March 216, so he's there for a while, the city has been devastated.

He is accused of massacring nearly a quarter of the city's population. The city is essentially divided into military zones to prevent people moving between them. And the visit has been an absolute disaster by all accounts. Do we have any idea why or can we believe this? I think, you know, maybe it's just buying in too much into the literary tradition, but I have absolutely no problem with believing it's that it happened in some way, shape or form. But the reasons for it happening, again, it depends on who you read. So when we read something like Cassius Dio and Herodian and the Achaea,

I'm just going to group them all together because there are so many little threads of these sources here that it's wise to treat them as one unit and talk about the episodes individually. So according to one telling, he arrives at the city and the populace of Alexandria are renowned for making fun of their rulers, making fun of people in power, taking the mick and just being generally

a bit cheeky. Now, the problem for the Alexandrians in this case is that apparently this ridicule has manifested in calling his mother, Julia Domna, Jocasta. This casts Caracalla himself as Oedipus, which is never going to go down too well. And there's all sorts of allegations flowing that the Alexandrians criticise Geta's murder in very, very public terms. And this ties in with what Herodian says earlier that the pair planned to divide the empire, Caracal and Geta, between themselves. It would have been Alexandria, according to Herodian, that would have been Geta's capital. So all of this seems to sort of dovetail quite neatly together. The other explanation is just a little bit more boring, but I think it's probably closer to the truth.

You have essentially a public order problem breaks out. And what we have is Caracalla responding to rioting, be this because he's tried to expel some people from the city but he responds in an excessively heavy-handed way he has a full campaigning army with him by that point he uses it so it goes from essentially a public order problem to one of a mass killing in the streets of alexandria god absolutely horrific if we talk about alexandria if we're talking about the person that that city is named after, Alexander the Great, and you've kind of mentioned it already, but it seems as if in the Eastern Mediterranean, in the Near East at this time, the memory of this figure is still

very much there. Absolutely. It has massive political clout, basically, as a concept. And you'll find various cities still evoke their connections with Alexander the Great. It is an ongoing conversation about power and about what it means to be linked to this Hellenistic past. It ties into the Hellenistic cities' relationships with each other as much as with Roman imperial power. And so it's something that emperors are very keen to buy into because it inserts themselves into that matrix of relationships and makes them the focal point to look up to rather than the memory of Alexandria, it does strike a rather discordant note. But it doesn't seem to stop Caracalla trying to evoke that Alexandrian image in the midst of his campaign in general. Trying to evoke that Alexandrian image and how better to do that than to recreate his

main infantry unit. Alex, first and foremost, as we now start delving into this bizarre, remarkable story, what is a Macedonian phalanx? So a Macedonian phalanx is essentially the shorthand for the key military unit used by the Panhellenic army of Alexander the Great in his conquest of the Achaemenid Persian empire. Very much like your stereotypical hoplite phalanx, it is one of dense infantry. The difference being rather than a still a relatively long spear, you have something that looks like a long spear on steroids. You have the sarissa, the pike. You are essentially a pike armed unit rather than a spear armed unit. And a spear armed unit and

these pikes can vary anywhere from four to six meters in length they are absolutely ginormous and a pike phalanx like this requires an exceptional degree of training in order to wield that unwieldy weapon well but essentially you are effectively an impenetrable wall of spear points when your enemy gets close enough and it it gives you tremendous reach. So you can continually pressure enemies that might require range units or might rely on cavalry, archery, etc. It's an excellent unit for that kind of theatre. That's the Macedonian phalanx that apparently Caracalla tries to resurrect. Yes. So what do our Listeria resources tell us about this story? When does Caracalla decide that he wants to recreate this military unit? So the Historia Augusta and Herodian give us a slightly passive account of it.

They just say that when Caracalla is travelling through Macedon, Greece, Thrace, he raises formations that are phalanx formations or that are given names based on the local regions. Dio, again, Caracalla's most ardent critic, is the most detailed in this case and it's a relatively unusually detailed excursus on military affairs for Dio because Dio usually detests anything military. He hates soldiers, he hates the emperors who buy soldiers. As a result, he hates Caracalla. But when Dio talks about this formation being levied, he goes into minuscule detail about the armament and the formation itself. So he claims that when Caracalla arrives in Macedon and that region, he raises a formation that is 16,000 strong and that is armed, to quote Dio, in the manner of the phalangites armed by Alexander the Great. And he expressly details the points of equipment such as the long pike and a short spear, a sword, a linen breastplate and particularly armoured shin protectors and a peculiar helmet as well. Now the interesting thing about Dio's excursus for all its detail is

that it seems quite problematic when we compare it to the original Alexandrian phalanx in as much as he has points of equipment such as the leather helmet etc which they weren't used by the Alexandrian phalanx we know that and the 16 000 strong figure is also quite a problematic detail because that is equivalent to over three legions worth of men it's a campaigning force in its own right and this is an exceptional level of manpower to be raised if we if we believe daioh given that that region is already funneling men towards the danubian legions and potentially even the eastern legions as well at that point. So this is an extraordinary force that apparently Caracalla has levied. Where does the historicity of this formation actually sit though? Can we believe that Caracalla actually raises a phalanx of 16,000 men and arms them in this anachronistic fashion by this point? I think that we should

accept that any military-minded emperor is going to want to arm his men in a way that counters particular threats in any given theatre. And so I think we have to accept that Caracal may have wanted to arm his men in a manner that would counter the Parthians' renowned use of cavalry archers, lancers, and likely armed infantry as well. I have absolutely no problem with that. The problem is that when we start probing the archaeological evidence for this, the picture seems slightly more complex. When people think of Caracalla's Alexandrian phalanx, sometimes they're drawn to the legionary fortress site at Apamea in Syria, which was the legionary

base for the second legion Parthica during this period. In that site there are a number of funerary remains which talk about trainee lancers and a trainee phalangide. Now for some that is the thing that squares the circle that is the proof positive that Caracalla raised a massive phalanx of men called them the phalanx of Alexander and marched them into Syria and then against the Parthian Empire. The problem with that funerary evidence though is that the actual iconography on those remains is indistinct. It's a very artistic, very stylized presentation of the deceased, so we can't really make any claims on the equipment that the deceased would have worn on the basis of those funerary remains. More complex, however,

is that all of the trainees in these specialisations that might be the phalanx are legionary in nature. So they are members of the Second Legion, which means that if we believe that Caracalla levied this massive phalanx, those men are not the same men. How I think we reconcile these odd and apparently divergent bodies of evidence though is to say that Caracal probably did levy a lot of men during his travels through Macedon, through Greece etc. He enrolled many I would suggest into the second legion Parthica. Bear in mind by making everybody citizens in 212 he had made them eligible for service in the legions and then what we have is that he trains them in longer spears now i don't think that he trained them for use with the sarissa i would say that it's probable that these infantry are trained in close order formation using the spatha longsword and using something probably more akin to the hasta so that

long spear used going back to the triarii back in the republican period so they are a spear armed infantry they are a dense close unit formation probably quite well armored moreover but it's not alexander's phalanx they're not armed with the linothorax or not armed with the sarissa it's no problem though i don't see why people get so het up on this because it would be really odd if Caracalla were to recruit all these men, arm them in that fashion and not take the chance to compare them to Alexander's phalanx. I think that's perfectly understandable. What did Tudor men like their women to look like? They should have broad shoulders, fleshy arms, fleshy legs and broad hips. What did 17th century Londoners think of coffee?

A syrup of soot and the essence of old shoes. And what did executioners wear? A lot of these guys, they were clothes horses because it's a big public spectacle. All the eyes are on you. I'm Professor Susanna Lipscomb, and in my podcast, Not Just the Tudors, we talk about everything from monasteries to the Medici, sex to spying, wardrobes to witch trials. Not, in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors. Subscribe from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. then you do look at the historical context for this and alex when you look at the military the severan military at this time this does seem to be a time when the military has been evolving and

changing to counter new threats such as the new parthian menace in the east yes absolutely i mean i think not even just in the Severan era I think the problems that Caracalla faces you could apply those military pressures to any emperor from Trajan through to about Gordian III before the situation really radically changes anything and so we have legionary expeditionary forces fighting on multiple fronts they're fighting in Britain from 208 to 211. They've fought two campaigns with Severus against Parthia. So there is recent contemporary knowledge of what it means to fight on the Parthian front. Caracalla takes his same expeditionary force to the northern frontier and fights in several engagements against tribes on the northern frontier. So we shouldn't

be thinking that the Roman army of this period is monolithic or homogenous, really, even. It's an organization with probably a fairly forward thinking high command up to and including Caracalla himself from his personal experience. And it's one as well, moreover, that is characterized by increasing differentiation in arms. You have, like I say, close order infantry. You have increasing use of legionary range troops. I'm thinking of things like the Sagittarii Legionnis, the legionary archers, and the Scorpio siege engine being used in increasing numbers. is a step on that continuum rather than Caracalla absolutely losing the plot and making this formation Alexandrian in every way shape or form. I think we get that because it fits Dio's narrative of casting Caracalla as this Alexander fantasist who does everything from steal items of equipment that Alexander is supposed to have used from the tomb which puts him in the good company of Caligula in doing that which is interesting

the two emperors that have nicknames based on items of military attire are the ones that are bonkers about stealing things from Alexander's tomb and Dio finishes this off with a beautiful set piece claiming that Caracalla writes to the senate and claims that he is Alexander reborn. Now if you believe Dai on face that's absolutely mad but if you take what Dai was doing and is probably warping it's a statement that Caracalla is following in the footsteps of Alexander. He is evoking, he is being the new triumphant commander in the east in the same way that Severus's rival Piscennius Niger was named the new triumphant commander in the East, in the same way that Severus's rival, Paschinius Niger, was named the new Alexander in the East because that mythos has political currency in the East. Quick tangents quickly, because my mind instantly went to the Alexander medallion that you find at

that time from Caracalla, but also the medallion of Alexander's mother Olympias. And if Caracalla does really believe that he is Alexander reborn, is there any hint in the sources and perhaps in the archaeology as well, did he ever at all frame his mother, Julia Domna, as a new Olympias, as it were? That's fascinating. I hadn't really even thought on that potential link to date. I would say if he did, it probably gets lost a little bit in the kind of cosmic mother imagery that Julia takes on under Caracalla's reign that I mentioned last time round.

Because I think if there is a link, it's that Julia is a figure associated with and in some ways behind his military prowess and victory. And certainly we have a sculptural relief it's now housed in warsaw where we have julia as victory behind him crowning caracalla in a very maternal way that would be a kind of alexander olympias neat little tie-in but i think it's more to do with that idea of julia being the cosmic mother who's guaranteeing a success of the empire on a holistic level. Well there you go there you go food for thought food for future research indeed

Alex. So just before we go on is the whole story of the Macedonian phalanx do you think it's really just a great example of showing Cassius Dio and his determination to deride Caracalla in any way, shape or form. And in this regard, transforming this new, probably perfectly sensible anti-cavalry pike unit into an antiquated military unit that does just have incredible links to Alexander. Yeah, I think it's twofold. I think it shows the continued power of the Alexander mythos and it shows how easy it is to form a PR campaign based on Alexander. Because if we look further back in history, you have Nero raising just legions who are to be sent to the Caspian Gate,

just regular legions, and they are called the phalanx of Alexander before being shipped off to the east. So it shows the effectiveness and the ease with which emperors think PR victories can be achieved by evoking Alexander the Great. It does show, on the other hand, the flip side, how easy it is for somebody like Cassius Dio to warp that and to twist that. Dio certainly pulls no punches. If he can find an angle to criticise Caracalla, he will mine it to the absolute extreme. And Daiwa was a member of Karakala's council in the early phase of his Eastern campaign. So a lot of this is probably coming partly from his eyewitness testimony, but with an

angle, with an axe to grind, and with a bit of bitterness that he's been left out probably in the sun too long while the army's being drilled. So Daioh is an exceptional character assassin of Caracalla, and it permeates so much of the contemporary books. The loathing for this emperor just cannot be understated on the part of Daioh. Fergus Miller, I think it is, writes about Daioh writing about Caracalla and says that he can imagine Daioh driving the stylus into his desk positively with the amount of vitriol and hatred that he has for Caracalla. So much vitriol indeed. But to wrap it all up, how does Caracalla's

campaign in the East Fair? Does he reach the Caspian gates? Alas, he is prevented. So after the Alexandrian incident, shall we say, the massacre of the Alexandrian populace, he retreats or retires to his campaigning base at Antioch and from there launches a campaign. Now the sources are, again, as usual, quite convoluted on the circumstances of the beginning of that campaign. If we believe Herodian, there's this idea of Caracalla propositioning the Parthian king and asking for the hand of his daughter in marriage. Again, almost an Alexandrian style vibe going on there to try and unify East and West through a marriage of that ilk. It's probably fictive.

If there was really any truth to it, it was likely released by Caracalla and the full knowledge that that invitation would be rejected strongly by the Parthian king and thus give him a context for an invasion of the Parthian empire. So the campaign starts launching from Antioch. There's a fairly indecisive first campaigning season. No real gains or losses are made and it seems like it's going to go into a second or third campaigning season as the year 217 begins. But it's during the year 217 that Caracalla meets his own death. And he is apparently venturing from a visit to a lunar temple near the site of Carai. Caracalla was famous on this trip, his eastern expedition, for visiting various religious sites as well. This seems to be a

characteristic. He is absolutely devout on some level, I think. We shouldn't discount his religiosity, even if he weaponizes it to protect his regime. And it's on the return from such a visit to one of these temples that he's assassinated. And it's not by a Parthian arrow, it's not by a cataphract's lance or anything like that, it's by his own bodyguard. And he, perhaps befitting his rather villainous personal life, he meets an incredibly ignominious end. He's travelling with his entourage, he needs to use the toilet, so he steps off his horse to the side of the road and it's while he's doing his business that the bodyguards set upon him and stab him to death. Only one of his chamberlains seeks to defend him and that chamberlain meets their untimely death at the

side of their master. So Caracal is murdered by the very people who he petitioned in the aftermath of Geta's death and the reasons for this overthrow are debated again but it's usually thought that it stems from the Praetorian prefect at the time Macrinus and Macrinus depending on who you read apparently intercepted a death warrant with his name on it and decided to act before it was too late. And thus Caracalla was murdered in the dust and sand near Cari. It's once again so interesting how it does happen near Cari, that infamous place in Roman history. Indeed. But also the fact that if Caracalla is so often portrayed as this military figure,

then it is actually these military figures who see about his downfall. that if Caracalla is so often portrayed as this military figure, then it is actually these military figures who see about his downfall. Indeed, these military men, you know, and we're past the time where we can view the Praetorian Guard as a distinct paramilitary force that is separate from the army because of Caracalla's own father arriving in 193 into Rome and finding the guard really unsatisfactory and cashing the lot of them and replacing them with the men from his own legion. So these are in some cases potentially veterans of Caracalla's own father who are involved in the eventual assassination of the emperor and

it does to some degree perhaps undercut this image of Caracalla as the military ruler but I think we have to look at what happens afterwards as well because because Caracalla's image, while we condemn it, while Gibbon calls him the common enemy of mankind, it still had its own pull and its own draw and its own value. Caracalla's assassin, Macrinus, rules for less than a year, intensely unpopular on all fronts, with the army, with the senate, with everybody in the court and it takes very little as i think you covered in your podcast with matilda brown to topple this regime once the sovereign women under julia maesa get their act together and start bankrolling a counter-revolution absolutely absolutely that's a great way to end it as a link to that other podcast sisters at war

alex this has been another great chat about caracalla his macedonian phalanx and his horrific end always a pleasure to see you so thanks so much for coming back on the pod no thank you for having me again it's been a great pleasure Thank you.