Alexander : a history of the origin and growth of the art of war from ...

68 ORDER OF MARCH.serve to reestablish a failing battle. Neither the rear ranksof the hoplites could perform this duty, for they were fatiguedby the march and battle, and if demoralization supervened,they all the more partook it ; nor could the psiloi, as theywere not stanch enough, nor armed with hand-to-hand weapons.Though the peltasts might have been so employed, itnever seemed to occur to the Greeks to put them to such ause. A reserve was the conception of an individual, not aprinciple of tactics, with them.Thus the value of the phalanx lay in the defensive, or in anoffensive blow given from a short distance and always in closeorder. The Greek wars, like the phalanx, generally partookof a defensive character ; or rather, from the defensive characterof Greek wars very naturally arose the phalangial idea.The Greek armies were usually small ; their baggage-trainlimited. Their marches were, as a rule, in one column, bythe right of the order of battle. Thus the head of colmimconsisted of psiloi, who also acted as flankers.Then came thecavalry and the peltasts of the right wing ; then the phalanx.Behind this was apt to be placed the train of wagons andpack-animals, and then came the peltasts and cavalry of theleft wing, then again psiloi. Hampered with little trains andsmall in number, the armies of the Greeks could and didoften perform wonderful marches, and sometimes at once wentinto battle. Fifteen miles was the average march ; but theSpartans marched to Marathon, one hundred and fifty miles,in three days, and arrived ready for immediate action, but toolate. The theory of marches was not as generally understoodand practiced as the theory of fighting. Marches were oftencarelessly conducted ; but some of the Greek generals marchedtheir armies with consummate intelligence. There were nosuch set rules for the route as for the battlefield.The Greek orders of battle were : 1. The parallel. In this