+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? (/showthread.php?tid=14759)
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-02-2009
Quote:Paullus Scipio:24v9jm4q Wrote:'Battle order' or 'the order in which they meant fight' refers to dispositions - which unit stood next to which........
Quote: Xenophon speaks of 'battle formation' 4 deep....
So which is correct – the former or the latter?
Both !
"Battle Order" = the dispositions of the units in the phalanx, which unit stood alongside which on the battlefield e.g. at Cyrus' review, we have the "battle order" of Menon and his troops on the right,Clearchus on the left and the other Greek generals in the centre......
"Battle formation" = the formation a particular unit or phalanx stands in, thus the aforesaid mercenary units stand in close order 4 deep......( but could also be other formations e.g. 8 deep in open/normal order......
However, confusion is understandable since some authors/translators use the terms interchangeably :x roll:
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-02-2009
Quote:
"Battle Order" = the dispositions of the units in the phalanx, which unit stood alongside which on the battlefield e.g. at Cyrus' review, we have the "battle order" of Menon and his troops on the right,Clearchus on the left and the other Greek generals in the centre......
"Battle formation" = the formation a particular unit or phalanx stands in, thus the aforesaid mercenary units stand in close order 4 deep......( but could also be other formations e.g. 8 deep in open/normal order......
However, confusion is understandable since some authors/translators use the terms interchangeably :x :roll:
Glad you cleared that up. In which case when you state that Xenophon's mercenaries formed up in "battle formation" they have formed in close order. To quote Xenophon (1.2.15):
Quote:...form their lines and take their positions just as they were accustomed to do for battle, each general marshalling his own men. So they formed the line four deep..
The Greek is: ekeleuse de tous Hellênas hôs nomos autois eis machên
Arrian, via Ptolemy (and likely Callisthenes), describes Alexander's movements at Issos in the same terminology (2.8.3, 8):
Quote:...but when they advanced into the open country, he began to draw up his army in battle order (eis machen)...
...Alexander's approach for battle (prosagon ede Alexandros os es machen)...
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-02-2009
....didn't I just say that authors/translators often use the term interchangeably? And didn't I also say that a 'battle formation' was not necessarily close order but might be used to refer to open order as well? :wink:
English is a complex language, as we know, and there is a distinction in English between "order" =put in order, array; and "formation"=disposition of troops. Thus one can 'put one's formations in order' or 'order one's battle formations'. Whilst I hasten to add that I have little knowledge of Greek, it may be that a single expression in Greek 'eis machen' covers both order and formation.
Even if there is some ambiguity, it cannot affect the debate here, for in both cases we have a phalanx, Greek or Macedonian ending up in it's 'fighting formation', namely close order, in the former case 4 deep and in the latter case 8 deep, and since as has been said, a formation one thousand yards long can't change it's depth by expanding to two thousand yards, ( and yes, the manuals do describe such a manouevre, which appears to have been done at Cynoscephalae - which is surely the exception that proves the Rule) then this argues strongly that when we are told a Greek phalanx was eight deep, it must refer to open order, and similarly a Macedonian one 16 deep must also logically refer to open order.Counter-marching too, which we know was carried out by both Greeks and Macedonians can only be realistically carried out in Open order.
The hypothesis I have put forward is the only one known to me which is consistent with ALL the evidence that I am aware of. Even so I would not go so far as to be certain - there may yet be anomalies - but so far, I feel it is the most likely explanation.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-02-2009
Quote:… so that when 'closed up' into 'pyknosis' the line is just 4 deep, with each man on a 3 foot frontage, as Xenophon famously tells us. The front 3 ranks of Hoplites could use their spears, with a rear rank of 'file closers', again not wasting the 'fighting strength' of the formation.....
Quote:Xenophon specifically says the men were drawn up in "Battle Formation" 4 deep, and that it was in this formation that they carried out their mock charge, which was sufficiently real as to terrify the on-lookers into running away!!
Again, the Greek term you refer to as “battle formation” or “closed up” is en machen. This is precisely the Greek descriptor utilised by Arrian for Alexander’s dispositions at Issos as advances the 30 odd stades in battle order / formation (“en machen”)
Yet you have totally dismissed this earlier in the thread claiming it means “open order”.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-02-2009
These arguments are mere sophistry at best.....I have already pointed out that 'order' and 'formation' overlap to a degree, even though in English we may distinguish between them. Perhaps the Greek does not allow this distinction, which is yours and artificial.Come up with an alternative hypothesis rather than simply criticise one which does, in fact, fit the known evidence. Until someone with better knowledge of Ancient Greek can elaborate, I would suggest 'eis machen' refers to the process of forming phalanx from column, in open order; then advancing on the foe in open order, and finally 'closing up' just before contact and thereby halving the depth.....
So we have Greek Hoplites, 8 deep in 'open/normal' order, closing up to 4 ranks deep in close order just before contact, and similarly we have a 16 deep 'open/normal' Macedonian phalanx close up to 8 deep. Common sense alone would indicate that troops would not form up in a formation whereby two-thirds of the troops simply do nothing, other than hold their pikes in the air to protect against missiles, and in doing so, form up on a narrow front, easily outflanked. Such a formation would be suicidally insane, all other things being equal.....
In my hypothesis, 3/4 of the hoplites take part in combat, and 5/8 of sarissaphoroi....which makes a damn sight more sense than having 2/3 taking no part, and leave themselves vulnerable to outflanking..... :roll:
D
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-02-2009
It is time to depart. I'm certain others find this boring and I have no desire to be seen as "nitpicking selective words and phrases". You and I will not agree on the meaning of this term though it is yourself that has dogmatically stated that meaning - as used by Xenophon - in backing your argument more than the once.
I would leave with the observation that I disagree with both the below assertions.
Quote:These arguments are mere sophistry at best.....Perhaps the Greek does not allow this distinction, which is yours and artificial.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-02-2009
Agreed...all the evidence, slim though it is, has been aired. Only once ( Xenophon) are we told what formation Hoplites customarily fought in - 4 deep- and only once do we hear of the depth of Alexander's phalanx in action - 8 deep ( Arrian). Elsewhere we hear of Hoplites 8 deep and sarissaphoroi 16 deep.The manuals tell us how the changes in depth were carried out - even to the fact that there were half-file leaders etc .....and evidently there is no viable alternative theory, at least that can be offered up here, to explain these changes in depth and their function.
We are therefore left with the model I have suggested or...............??????
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Giannis K. Hoplite - 06-02-2009
Or the model of no model,which is the most wise one.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-02-2009
Forgot the one thing…
Quote:I would suggest 'eis machen' refers to the process of forming phalanx from column…
This seems always to be en taxei or a grammatical variant. Generally it used to indicate the hoplites in line as opposed to column.
Giannis might confirm?
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Giannis K. Hoplite - 06-02-2009
Eis machen (??? ?????) means just "to(direction) battle". It can mean anything. It can mean "ready for battle" which is the most likely in our context,but this means nothing to us. Because were they considered ready for battle when,in open or close order? "En taxei" (?? ?????) means "in order","orderly". You can use it for everything. You can have them march in column "en taxei" or you can have a group of children leave their shoes beside that wall "en taxei". Do not try to find standard military terms. They are using adjectives and adverbs to describe the action,not the order. Since we have no specific orders mentioned by the ancient authors,we can't try to identify specific actions for them.
As has been extensively discussed before,Xenophon's words about the forming of the battle line can be interpreted in many different ways. I am of the opinion that "as was custom(law) to them" does not refer to the phalanx depth,neither to the order of the different units in the formation. It is used to describe the way in which a greek army would form a battle formation from a marching column. I remind, his exact word is not "custom" or "habit" but "law"(?????). This suggests something strong,like the procedure in which thousants of men would always form a greek phalanx,no matter what its depth would be. Also note that their depth is mentioned in a different clause,not in the same where it is mentioned that it was a law/custom to them.
In the end,Paul i don't think there is anyone here that disagrees with your theory,but on the same hand it's just one of the least plausible interpretations of what Xenophon meant. And as you said yourseld,there is only him,nothing else. So i repeat,there is no need to make any model,brcause it doesn't have a stong base and it can only be misleading.
Khairete
Giannis
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-02-2009
Quote:We are therefore left with the model I have suggested or...............??????
Or they deployed into a phalanx at the spacing intended for the charge, which could be 16,8, or 4. You ascribe far too much to Xenophon's telling us his troops were arrayed in battle. He was not entering battle, but trying to get a Queen's blood pumping for his boss. Thus he has to tell us that he arrayed them in an order that is like battle order because he is NOT going into battle. He is specifically telling us that this was no parade of troops, but a simulation of the charge of a phalanx. Greeks may well have formed in 4 ranks when facing lighter asian troops whose large numbers would present an even greater threat of outflanking than back home, but clearly he had little fear that the Queen and her handmaidens were going to break through his line and was free to array it in any manner that would look most impressive.
The only thing worse than being outflanked is being broken through. Whether physical push is invoked or we fall back on moral cohesion or simple replacement, depth has great value on a battlefield.
My guess is that these guys below would love some more depth (though of course they are reenacting and shedding far less blood than an actual push of pike):
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-02-2009
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:You ascribe far too much to Xenophon's telling us his troops were arrayed in battle. He was not entering battle, but trying to get a Queen's blood pumping for his boss. Thus he has to tell us that he arrayed them in an order that is like battle order because he is NOT going into battle. He is specifically telling us that this was no parade of troops, but a simulation of the charge of a phalanx. Greeks may well have formed in 4 ranks when facing lighter asian troops whose large numbers would present an even greater threat of outflanking than back home, but clearly he had little fear that the Queen and her handmaidens were going to break through his line and was free to array it in any manner that would look most impressive....this argument has been put before, and dealt with before. The formation was NOT a special one devised for the occasion, and Xenophon is at pains to tell us so - he says it was the 'customary' formation or something stronger if Giannis is correct ( more like 'Rule' or 'Law' ) and I would agree with you that it was a simulated charge of the Phalanx. A moment's thought will demonstrate that the Greeks had no opportunity to devise or practise a 'special' formation for the occasion.....there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Hoplites, or Alexander's Sarissaphoroi for that matter, generally formed up more thinly at half the usual depth against 'Asiatics'.Your supposition flys in the face of the evidence ( little though it is)
Quote:The only thing worse than being outflanked is being broken through. Whether physical push is invoked or we fall back on moral cohesion or simple replacement, depth has great value on a battlefield.Agreed....but again I have already referred to the fact that modern re-enactors, and Police facing rioters, have discovered that a line as thin as three deep cannot be burst through, no matter how deep the 'mob' charging them ....so four deep would seem to be adequate, allowing 3 deep to participate, and a fourth line of 'replacement' of casualties....a quarter of the force be it noted. Excessive depth is a handicap, as Xenophon pointed out ( Cyropaedia)
The Macedonians 8 deep might be considered excessive...save that 5 deep could participate, leaving a similar proportion, this time 3/8ths, as reserves/supports. A formation 16 deep in close order, with 11/16ths not participating, is no longer 'linear'.....then there are the other factors such as the 'half-file' leaders etc of Xenophon and the manuals, and the impracticalities of trying to advance cross-country in a line a thousand yards long in close order ( can't be done!)
And before Theban formations are again brought up, let me say we are here generalising on the typical, speaking of which, recollect that the 50 deep Thebans did not break through the Spartan line at Leuctra, where the Spartans, in their much thinner line, held on until their King was mortally wounded and those around him mostly casualties, only then giving way. If Spartan 'super troops' are argued, consider that Spartans in a deep column could not break through Arcadians in a normal 'close order' line (Xen 'History of my times' VII.4.23) and were repulsed with Archidamus their leader wounded in the thigh, and severe casualties among those around him.Incidents like this show that too much depth was not in itself useful, and the dangers of being outflanked. ( the Thebans at Leuctra were only saved from this by Pelopidas' famous charge)....Xenophon was right about depth!
D As for the photo, it is no more a realistic reproduction of battle than a Rugby scrum or Gridiron scrimmage.....
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 06-02-2009
Quote:...this argument has been put before, and dealt with before. The formation was NOT a special one devised for the occasion, and Xenophon is at pains to tell us so - he says it was the 'customary' formation or something stronger if Giannis is correct ( more like 'Rule' or 'Law' ) and I would agree with you that it was a simulated charge of the Phalanx.
Right, it simulated "a" phalanx, not "the" phalanx. There was no single option for the depth of a phalanx. here Xenophon has chosen the shallowest. With the same troops he could have chosen a depth of 8 or 16 depending on the troops they faced. Surely there is no logical problem with Xenophon being able to tell his men not to double down all the way to 4, but to form the 8 rank formation in close order? In another situation he could tell his men to move directly into close order during the 16 rank step. He also could line up whole lochoi along side each other with gaps between them as he might prior to deployment and then not deploy them at all and face the enemy in orthoi lochoi.
Quote: A moment's thought will demonstrate that the Greeks had no opportunity to devise or practise a 'special' formation for the occasion.....there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Hoplites, or Alexander's Sarissaphoroi for that matter, generally formed up more thinly at half the usual depth against 'Asiatics'.Your supposition flys in the face of the evidence ( little though it is)
Marathon comes to mind. It would be hard to find a better "test" of depth than marathon where the thinned center is broken through and the deep flanks are victorious.
Quote:Agreed....but again I have already referred to the fact that modern re-enactors, and Police facing rioters, have discovered that a line as thin as three deep cannot be burst through, no matter how deep the 'mob' charging them ....so four deep would seem to be adequate, allowing 3 deep to participate, and a fourth line of 'replacement' of casualties....a quarter of the force be it noted.
Not true. 3 deep can resist a "rush" by a small group of men, like a wedge for example, but a crowd can push through a rank of three men. What you are confusing with pushing is "herding", where police beat a crowd into moving away from them.
Quote:Excessive depth is a handicap, as Xenophon pointed out ( Cyropaedia)
I agree with Xenophon's obvious dig at Theban tactics- 100 ranks are too deep. If you read further though, you will see that he admits the enemy will break through his thin line unless the missiles of he rear rankers and the flank attacks of his other troops break them. It runs counter to your arguement that as the 5th/4th centuries progress we see phalanxes becoming generally deeper while concurrently the threat of envelopment is rapidly increasing due to better handling of light troops and cavalry.
Quote:The Macedonians 8 deep might be considered excessive...save that 5 deep could participate, leaving a similar proportion, this time 3/8ths, as reserves/supports. A formation 16 deep in close order, with 11/16ths not participating, is no longer 'linear'.....
You define participate as directly attacking. Participation can be simply adding to morale by standing behind the men who are fighting. Participation can also of cource being there to phisically block their rearward movement- of their own volition or by being driven back by the enemy. The sheer volume of formations deeper than 4 in the history of warfare speak to this benefit.
Quote:then there are the other factors such as the 'half-file' leaders etc of Xenophon and the manuals,
The ability to do something does not neccesitate its performance. Surely it would be a good idea to have the flexibility to double down thinner than normal should the need arise- as when scaring Cilician women.
Quote:and the impracticalities of trying to advance cross-country in a line a thousand yards long in close order ( can't be done!)
It would be odd if a greek with a shield and spear could not march across a field in close order while just about any early modern fellow with a shouldered musket seems to have been able to advance much farther shoulder to shoulder in much thinner lines.
Quote:And before Theban formations are again brought up, let me say we are here generalising on the typical, speaking of which, recollect that the 50 deep Thebans did not break through the Spartan line at Leuctra, where the Spartans, in their much thinner line, held on until their King was mortally wounded and those around him mostly casualties, only then giving way.
Precisely as I would predict with a crowd-like othismos. Coordinating the motions of 50 men ranks is very difficult, so the effective pushing power of the 50 ranks was not superior to the pushing power of the Spartan 12 ranks. What was superior is the stamina of the Thebans because the sheer mass behind the front lines made pushing them backwards increasingly difficult as with each step you pack them tighter and recieve more resistance. For the Spartans it was like pushing up hill.
Quote:If Spartan 'super troops' are argued, consider that Spartans in a deep column could not break through Arcadians in a normal 'close order' line (Xen 'History of my times' VII.4.23)
Same phenomenon as above.
Quote:Incidents like this show that too much depth was not in itself useful, and the dangers of being outflanked. ( the Thebans at Leuctra were only saved from this by Pelopidas' famous charge)....Xenophon was right about depth!
And yet, the deep formation worked at delium, leuktra and mantinaea. It was vulnerable to outflanking, which is why once the novelty wore off it was discarded as a tactic, but it was ideal at breaking through ranks of men. In general I balk at claiming Pagondas and Epaminondas were tactic morons
hock: Quote:As for the photo, it is no more a realistic reproduction of battle than a Rugby scrum or Gridiron scrimmage.....
and no less.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 06-02-2009
Paullus places far too much faith in a sainted Xenophon. Xenephon had little interest in praising neither Thebes nor it generals and their tactics. The venom and bias are readily apparent in the Leuktra battle description. The generals are not given names and the Thebans succeeded due to the fact that the Spartan’s weak cavalry disrupted their lines. As well, for the Thebans, the gods bestowed all the gifts of fortune whilst nothing went prosperously for the Spartans.
Both Plutarch Diodorus ascribe the victory to the “weight” of the Theban’s loaded wing and oblique attack. Xenophon would have us believe that the Spartans were winning when it is clear in the other accounts that they were always under pressure for this reason.
Plutarch, for once interested in the battle, describes the Spartan attempt to extend their wing so as to attempt to envelop the Thebans. One can only suggest this further thinned their depth – a depth no more than 12 – thus adding to the possibility of the inevitable breakthrough.
In all, Xenophon’s treatment of the battle is almost laughably exculpatory of the Spartans. It is their allies who deserted and the cavalry who caused this defeat. Relying on him we not know that the allies were not engaged as Epaminondas had refused his line in an oblique and only engaged the Spartan right. These tactics are too difficult to write down for Xenophon.
Probably the most cogent description in Xenophon’s account is the closing remark that the allies “were not even displeased at what had taken place”.
Paul Bardunias has dealt with the furphy that those not shoving spears in a phalanx are “not participating” in any way. As has Polybios. The exaggeration – for effect –that any behind those able to use spears are “taking no part” is specious.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 06-03-2009
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:There was no single option for the depth of a phalanx. here Xenophon has chosen the shallowest. With the same troops he could have chosen a depth of 8 or 16 depending on the troops they faced. Surely there is no logical problem with Xenophon being able to tell his men not to double down all the way to 4, but to form the 8 rank formation in close order? In another situation he could tell his men to move directly into close order during the 16 rank step. He also could line up whole lochoi along side each other with gaps between them as he might prior to deployment and then not deploy them at all and face the enemy in orthoi lochoi....apart from the fact that Xenophon was not a commander on this occasion, nor even a sub-commander, what you say is correct and I would agree. Nevertheless, Xenophon tells us that Clearchus and Menon drew up, not in the shallowest of many depths, but in their 'customary/normal battle order' which perhaps might also be translated as 'normal fighting formation'. This is 'close order' in fours. Xenophon gives full detail of the Drill for this. (Xen Cyropaedia II.3.21) Xenophon (Constitution XI.4) also gives a less detailed account of the drill of a Spartan enomotia (platoon) of 36 forming up in single file, and "threes" (i.e. three files of 12 - the files of Spartans are often described as 12 deep) which then halve into "sixes" ( the enomotia in close order is 6x6 ). That 'open' to 'close' order is referred to here is certain, because we are told "the phalanx becomes thinner or deeper" i.e. the frontage does not expand or contract.
Quote:Marathon comes to mind. It would be hard to find a better "test" of depth than marathon where the thinned center is broken through and the deep flanks are victorious.
Just so! Marathon will have taught a lesson indeed to Greeks....don't thin your Phalanx against Asiatics, or it might get broken through ! 'Normal' formations then are what we might expect to see rather than especially 'thinned' ones.......confirming Xenophon, that fighting in 'half-files' of four was 'normal/customary/the Rule'
Quote:Not true. 3 deep can resist a "rush" by a small group of men, like a wedge for example, but a crowd can push through a rank of three men. What you are confusing with pushing is "herding", where police beat a crowd into moving away from them....there are innumerable videos around of riots etc showing a thin police line successfully resisting the 'shove' of demonstrators much deeper. Significantly, once the parties are armed there is generally no 'shoving' but rather a 'stand-off' distance between the two forces equal to 'weapon's reach' and sparring takes place at this distance.....
Quote:I agree with Xenophon's obvious dig at Theban tactics- 100 ranks are too deep. If you read further though, you will see that he admits the enemy will break through his thin line unless the missiles of he rear rankers and the flank attacks of his other troops break them. I don't think so - he goes on to describe how Cyrus will defeat the vast numbers, allowing the "Lydians" to outflank him, will be beaten; you'll have to specify the passage you're referring to...
It runs counter to your arguement that as the 5th/4th centuries progress we see phalanxes becoming generally deeper while concurrently the threat of envelopment is rapidly increasing due to better handling of light troops and cavalry.
I think it is possible to over-simplify here - for example one factor in increasing depth is that the cities fought their wars on the same old battlefields often, but with larger and larger armies, and since the battlefield stayed the same size, larger armies had little choice but to form deeper
Xenophon's take on depth ( the 100 deep of the "Egyptian hoplites") [Xen Cyropaedia VI3.22] is here.....
[22] “And do you think, Cyrus,” said one of the generals, “that drawn up with lines so shallow we shall be a match for so deep a phalanx?”
“When phalanxes are too deep to reach the enemy with weapons,” answered Cyrus, “how do you think they can either hurt their enemy or help their friends? [23] For my part, I would rather have these hoplites who are arranged in columns a hundred deep drawn up ten thousand deep; for in that case we should have very few to fight against. According to the depth that I shall give my line of battle, I think I shall bring the entire line into action and make it everywhere mutually helpful.
Quote:You define participate as directly attacking. Participation can be simply adding to morale by standing behind the men who are fighting. Participation can also of cource being there to phisically block their rearward movement- of their own volition or by being driven back by the enemy. The sheer volume of formations deeper than 4 in the history of warfare speak to this benefit.
Agreed - perhaps one should speak of 'active' participation and 'passive' participation.....but you sure as Heck don't need 11/16ths of your force to achieve this effect!! ( morale boosting and physically blocking retreat).
Hence the original question: "The Macedonian Phalanx; Why so deep?"
My answer: On the evidence we have, the best answer is that Greek and Macedonian files, whether 8,12 or 16 deep ( and rarely 10) did not normally fight as files, but rather as half-files, thus the Macedonian phalanx generally would have fought 8 deep, with 5/8 of the soldiers actively participating with their weapons, and 3/8ths passively participating in support.