+- 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? - Macedon - 07-02-2009
So, let us discuss Aelian first. In his 4th chapter (On files) He commences by saying that "some make a file to consist of 8, others 12 and others 16 men". I believe that here he is generally speaking about files and not about the file of the Macedonian phalanx, yet he is analyzing the Maedonian one, so he goes on to say "We will take it at 16, for this number bears a just proportion to the mean length of a phalanx, and besides, if it should become necessary to double the depth of the phalanx, so as to give 32, or to reduce and contract it to 8, this will offer no impediment to the light armed troops in the rear...".
Here, in order to understand his words, we have to establish the density of his formation. Is he talking about open order? No, this is certain, because he talks about fighting in the formation and according to him (later on I will produce the text), open order was a marching and not a fighting formation. Can he mean "synaspismos" (or yperpykne)? My opinion is again no, since again according to him, the latter is a defensive formation used when the enemy is advancing upon the phalanx and not when the phalanx is advancing upon the enemy. So, most possibly he speaks about the "pykne" dense fomation we here call "closed". Thus, according to Aelian, the common formation in close order would be 16 deep and could be doubled or halfed, according to circumstances. (Of course such a phalanx would march 32 deep in open order and 8 deep in synaspismos, which are the numbers I proposed above). Here he does not mention nor does he imply any line fighting 4 deep.
In his next chapter (V, on the order of the lochos (file)), he clearly talks about half files and double files. Here he also mentions quarter files (enomotiai). the key in this chapter is his mentioning of the quality of the file and half file leaders as well as that of the covering man (file closer). He says "It is highly necessary that the file leaders should excel the others in bravery, and next to them (in bravery), the leaders of half files and the covering men in the rear. So, he does find it very important that the file and half file leaders should excel in bravery but not the enomotarchs (quarter file leaders). This leads me to believe that he expects the half file leader to take part in combat (when his general commands it), but not the quarter file leaders. Should he expect his phalanx to do battle in quarter files (4 deep), he would most probably mention them here.
Chapter XI (On the distances between man and man in the open, the close and the compact order), he talks about density. "The close order is observed when the commander joins battle with the enemy, the compact order (synaspismos) is resorted to when he wishes firmly to sustain the enemy charge" (this translation is a little bit lyrical, I think, if I remember the original well, although I am not sure right now). Then he talks about the frontage that 1024 files will have in each of this formations, but this should not (according to my opinion) led us to believe that the 1024 files of a perfect phalanx march in open order so that they will close to 8 and then to 4. Actually Aelian is suggesting that the general should contract his line and thus lessen his frontage (see chapter XXXII).
Also important is his account on chapter XIV (On the Macedonian phalanx and the proper length of pikes), where he says that 5 or 6 pikes "project beyond the soldiers in the front". He never mentions any possiblity of just 4 pikes taking part in the fight.
In chapter XXVIII (Of doubling either by rank or file), Aelian talks only about doubling the ranks (thus making his phalanx 8 deep in his model), certainly not qudrapling it (which would make his phalanx 4 deep). He also discusses doubling the files, rendering them 32 deep in fighting formation.
In chapter XLIX he calls "leptismos" (thinning) the deployment of a phalanx less than 16. Here he just says "a smaller number", but it calls for a lot of discussion until we surmise he also means 4.
In conclusion, I do not think that Aelian implies that his phalanx was designed to fight 4 deep. He also does not support my belief that the phalanx's density was increased from open to close by inserting back files among the front files, but he does indeed mention fighting 8 deep which is only possible when making a half file leader into a file leader. Yet, I believe that this sort of open order is much more quick to deploy than having your left files marching 500 meters to the center to complete the maneuver and would have been used...
Sorry, I don't have the original texts right now and have to access some interesting, yet sometimes peculiar translations in Googlebooks
( .
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 07-03-2009
Quote:Yet, I believe that this sort of open order is much more quick to deploy than having your left files marching 500 meters to the center to complete the maneuver and would have been used...
A gross lateral movement of files over large distance seems to be what is described at Cynocephalae. I agree with the notion of doubling files, though not to four, but I also think Aelian is describing a wide variety of maneuvers that accomplish the same goal. For example, he describes "doubling" by moving every other man in a file left and forward to form a new file in more detail than he does bringing up the rear half of the file. Why so many? Were they all expected to be done by a well trained force or was it a compilation of known maneuvers, perhaps from different times and places?
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 07-03-2009
Quote:In chapter XLIX he calls "leptismos" (thinning) the deployment of a phalanx less than 16. Here he just says "a smaller number", but it calls for a lot of discussion until we surmise he also means 4.
Most interesting George. I'd dearly love to read what you can post of the manual when (on the above mentioned passages) you can.
As I've argued, I believe Alexander thinned his line to eight so as his national levy occupied the field.
If the phalanx closed up by reducing depth, why do the files need to come from the rear? Given Arrian's description of the mixed phalanx (file leader, dimoirites, ten stater man...) it would make more sense to me that the supposed half file leader is in the second rank. If the phalax closed up by reducing depth then every second man steps right and forward. Synaspismos would be acheived by a contraction of the remaining frontage.
If, as is argued, the Macedonian phalanx's regular fighting depth was eight (in "half files"), there is no way that I - were I the dimoiretes - would be accepting any less pay than my contemporaries in the front fighting rank. Why is the bloke alonside of me - a "marching leader" - accorded a higher staus and, I assume, pay? Why make the distinction in pay when the duty and danger is exactly the same?
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 07-03-2009
Quote:Why is the bloke alonside of me - a "marching leader" - accorded a higher staus and, I assume, pay? Why make the distinction in pay when the duty and danger is exactly the same?...exactly the same reason a Sergeant recieves less pay than a Lieutenant today - you are his subordinate, second- in -command of the file and only responsible for 8 men, not 16.....not forgetting that 'battle' is only a tiny fraction of the time your duities take up....
D
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 07-03-2009
Quote:there is no way that I - were I the dimoiretes - would be accepting any less pay than my contemporaries in the front fighting rank. Why is the bloke alonside of me - a "marching leader" - accorded a higher staus and, I assume, pay?
Sure you would, because you have hopes of taking over his spot some day and want the higher pay when you get there!
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 07-03-2009
Paralus wrote:
Quote:I disagree totally with your mechanics and I do not believe it works for "synaspismos".....here and elsewhere, IIRC, you evidently have doubts about the Macedonian Phlanx forming 'synaspismos' on a one cubit frontage, as have others. As long ago as 2000 Connolly put together 16 re-enactors with pelta and sarissa to test various problems. The results , complete with photos, were published in JRMES 11 2000.
Here is what he had to say about forming synaspismos:-
"Doubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the two-cubit formation (close order/pyknosis) with pikes in the upright position....[the file] ...came up the interval between the other two files. They then levelled their pikes proving it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man".
As for how it was done at Hydaspes, I venture to suggest that the rear Half-files simply closed up as Connolly described - this could occur while fighting was occurring , for the enemy line would be beyond the hedge of pikes, or perhaps more likely, during one of the various lulls when the two sides will have drawn apart to draw breath and reform.
If we compare Xenophon's Hoplite drill and the manuals, not to mention the occasional glimpses/descriptions in the various histories, I believe that the 'Half-files' system of closing up just before contact ( at about 1-200 yards distance) was the original and simplest, and that this was probably the system in use in Alexander's day, but that by the time of Polybius, two other methods of 'closing up' had evolved as drill became more refined and sophisticated - closing up by having every second man step out and forward, and closing up by files, that is laterally with the frontage shrinking. The latter seems to have actually been used at Cynoscephalae (197 BC)
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 07-03-2009
Quote:....here and elsewhere, IIRC, you evidently have doubts about the Macedonian Phlanx forming 'synaspismos' on a one cubit frontage, as have others. As long ago as 2000 Connolly put together 16 re-enactors with pelta and sarissa to test various problems. The results , complete with photos, were published in JRMES 11 2000.
Here is what he had to say about forming synaspismos:-
"Doubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the two-cubit formation (close order/pyknosis) with pikes in the upright position....[the file] ...came up the interval between the other two files. They then levelled their pikes proving it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man".
No, I have no problem with synaspismos and the Macedonian phalanx. I would think that more than 16 re-enactors would be needed to perfrom a proper test of the system though.
Quote:As for how it was done at Hydaspes, I venture to suggest that the rear Half-files simply closed up as Connolly described - this could occur while fighting was occurring , for the enemy line would be beyond the hedge of pikes, or perhaps more likely, during one of the various lulls when the two sides will have drawn apart to draw breath and reform.
As opposed to Connolly's single file above, the phalanx at Hydaspes was - by all accounts - heavily engaged in a battle of life and death. Unless Alexander ordered his phalanx to disengage in the heat of battle, retire and then raise sarisae so as to allow Connolly's "easier than expected" synaspismos, I don't see it. You are arguing for a rear four to insinuate itself amid engaged files. If more than four sarisae were lowered in the attack (closed up) position, then one rank has to raise their sarisae.
I doubt Alexander had his pahalnx disengage as he was in the process of surrounding the Indians at the time. Hence the rear "quarter file", on your hypothesis, will have had to move up between four ranks of engaged sarisa wielders. That these files were so neat as to allow same - given the descriptions of the combat - is unlikely. In fact, reading between the lines and ignoring Macedonian propaganda, there was some serious loss of life in the infantry ranks. Not a few of your half files may already have been "quarter files" before any supposed doubling down to syaspismos.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 07-03-2009
Quote:Here is what he had to say about forming synaspismos:-
"Doubling the files proved far easier than expected. Formed up in the two-cubit formation (close order/pyknosis) with pikes in the upright position....[the file] ...came up the interval between the other two files. They then levelled their pikes proving it was possible to 'double' the formation allowing only one cubit per man".
Note that they have to raise their sarissa. This is a problem for Aelian's doubling by moving every other man in the file forward and support for doubling by half-files. The rear half of the file already have sarissa sloped, though with enough time anything could be done.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 07-03-2009
Yes, it must be self evident that no lateral movement is possible with pikes lowered, for each file ( at least the first 5 ranks) is effectively "fenced" in ! :lol:
To answer Paralus' question regarding synaspismos at Hydaspes, I see no difficulty in no. 5 giving the order to raise pikes to his 'quarter-file', during a lull, or even in action - no enemy will be near enough to impede him.
As to 'chaos' and casualties in the ranks, and some ranks/files depleted, that must have been a norm in any heavy battle, yet battlefield manouevres are attested - as here. It would largely be a matter of discipline and training, just as 18C units manouevred after having great holes torn in their ranks by cannon fire or modern units carry out attacks etc despite heavy casualties.....I don't think Macedonian soldiers any less capable
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - agesilaos3 - 07-04-2009
Arrian Anab. VIIxx3 …dekadarken men tes dekados hegesthai Makedona kai epi toutoi dimoiriten Makedona kai dekastateron….epi toutois de dodeka Persas kai teleutaion tes dekados Makedona, dekastateron kai touton….
With as dekadarchs leading the dekads a Macedonian and after them a Macedonian on double pay and a ten stater man…after those twelve Persians and bringing up the rear of the file another Macedonian ten stater man…
The Greek will not allow any interpretation other than the obvious one that counting from the front of the file there was a file –leader (surprise, surprise), a double payman , a ten stater man, twelve Persians and a final ten stater man. It’s the epi toutoi(s) that make it so; translations may be praised for many reasons but these days it has more to do with readability than closeness to the text. I prefer the Loeb by Brunt but only because the original is there to check, without Greek that might be otiose but it is quite easy to pick out the parts of speech and see how technical terms have been rendered, which is important to us but not to the general run of translators sadly.
Nor, Paul, was this formation to be used against horse archers; where it would have been clumsy and quite useless; Alexander showed how to deal with them on crossing the Oxus and it was a cavalry solution. The intended enemy were the Arabs also light horse but javelin armed and therefore forced to come into close enough quarters to make the missileman filling effective. Like Bosworth, however, I doubt how well it would have performed.
Regarding the trained Persians, they do not appear in the wars of the Diadochoi the troops that do are the Pandotopai or men of every nation, who sound rather more like the bastard offspring of the camp who were meant to have been trained in the Macedonian manner. I believe these were confused by one source with the Persians brought by Peucestas, who were untrained, probably because they were both 30,000 strong.
Not much bearing on the thread other than to scotch Paul’s interpretation of the ‘mixed phalanx’ but take heart, Scipio I would be loathe to draw too many conclusions about the fully fledged Macedonian phalanx from this one-off aberration other than to say that at the time of Alexander ‘dimoiretes ‘ meant double pay man and nothing more that later this was the pay scale of a half-file leader is irrelevant. The best argument for half-file leaders is the eight deep formation at Issos. But that does presuppose sixteen to be a full file.
The Nazi’s did some re-enactment of Swiss pike phalanxes, I’ve seen the comedy pictures of SS-men in WWII uniform with a pike (Versailles may have been harsh but…) does anyone know if the results of these were published? It was pre-war. They were manoeuvring as a battalion not just a file so despite the different drill there might be something relevant about the evolutions we are considering.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 07-04-2009
Thanks for the exact translation! It would appear that Arrian believed the three Macedonians stood at the front, then. I still have a few lingering doubts, though, mainly because 12 would be an unusually deep formation for archers to fight in ( throughout most of history, particularly the Middle Ages, archers generally fought 4-6 ranks deep.) Even with this 'lacuna' in Alexander's 'new-fangled ' phalanx, we should remember that a 'dimoirites' etc existed in the 'normal' Macedonian phalanx of PtolemyI, and I don't think one would suppose that an ordinary second-ranker received double pay, so he at least is more likely to have been a 'half-file leader'. As I remarked earlier, it really doesn't matter where the 'dimoirites' stood Alexander's one -off phalanx, it suffices that the rank existed. That it meant someone who held a rank/position, and meant more than simply an ordinary soldier receiving twice as much pay, is certain, for the Mate of a ship (second in command) was also called Dimoirites.
Quote:Nor, Paul, was this formation to be used against horse archers; where it would have been clumsy and quite useless;Since it never saw action, I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. Foot archers generally outrange Horse archers, regrdless of relative bow-power, because of aiming difficulties, and a Persian line of spearmen behind mantlets, backed by archers was very effective indeed against them. Arrian himself, drawing up a Roman line against Alans sought to defeat them in exactly this way - a line of spears/sharp pointy things to fend off the horsemen, backed by missile troops. Far from being 'useless' such a formation was optimal against horse archers.
Quote:The intended enemy were the Arabs also light horse but javelin armed and therefore forced to come into close enough quarters to make the missileman filling effective. Like Bosworth, however, I doubt how well it would have performed.Interesting.What is the evidence that Arab armies consisted of javelin armed light horse at this time? And if the Foot archers outranged both horse archers and mounted javelinmen alike, what is the difference? Further, what makes Bosworth think he knows better than Alexander how to form up these troops, or how effective they would have been?
Quote:I believe these were confused by one source with the Persians brought by Peucestas, who were untrained, probably because they were both 30,000 strong.If the Persians brought by Peucestas were archers, then they were hardly 'untrained' ! It takes long training to produce an archer, again as I have pointed out earlier.
Quote:at the time of Alexander ‘dimoiretes ‘ meant double pay man and nothing more that later this was the pay scale of a half-file leader is irrelevant. The best argument for half-file leaders is the eight deep formation at Issos. But that does presuppose sixteen to be a full file.I don't see any evidence for concluding 'nothing more' as I set out above - the word also refers to the second-in-command of a ship, nor is the later evidence 'irrelevant' since the successors phalanxes evolved from Alexander's, and the earlier Hoplite phalanx, which also contained half-file leaders ( see Xenophon) That 16 was the depth of the Macedonian phalanx ( in 'normal' order, I would aver :wink: ) can hardly be doubted , for a phalanx 32 deep was called 'double phalanx'.
I don't maintain my hypothesis is conclusive - there is too little evidence for that, and what we have is of a patchy nature. What I do say is that all the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis, and that it is likely that throughout it's history, at least from Xenophon's time and probably earlier, the evidence suggests that the Phalanx manouevred in files in open order, and that just before contact with the enemy closed up into 'close order' to fight. I have yet to see another explanation which takes account of all the evidence and factors.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 07-06-2009
Part II, Asclepiodotus
Ch. II (The subdivision of the phalanx of hoplites, their names and strength) analyzes the phalanx's subdivisions. We should not be alarmed by the word "Hoplite" in the title, since thus were called all armored infantry of the phalanx at the time, regardless the shape and size of shield. "...Accordingly, some have formed the file of eight men, others of ten, others of twelve and yet others of sixteen men, so that the phalanx will be symmetrical both for doubling the depth of its units, in circumstances to be described later, so that it may consist of thirty two men, and also for reducing it by one half, i.e. to eight men..." Asclepiodotus' account is very similar to that of Aelian's.
Further on he speaks of half files "But when, later on, the row was reorganized its parts received different names, for the half row is now called hemilochion (imilochion) or dimoiria, the former term being used for a file of 16 men, the latter for one of 12, and the leader is now called hemilochites and dimoirites and the quarter is called an enomoty and its leadr an enomotarch."
This is very interesting information, for it opens up the possibility of 12 men files, although I believe that here he speaks more generally about infantry phalanxes.
In Ch IV (Intervals), Asclepiodotus describes the three well known densities and then writes "As occasion demands, a change is made from one of these intervals to one of the others, and this, either in length only, which as we have noted before, is called forming by rank, or in depth, i.e. forming by file, or in both rank and file, which last is called "kata parastatin kai epistatin"" . So according to him, such changes could indeed be realized in all ways discussed by all of us.
Ch X (The terms used for military evolutions) . "... Doubling of men then takes place by length when we interject or insert between the original files other files of equal strength, maintaining all the while the length of the phalanx, so that a compact order (pyknosis) arises only from the doubling of the men. Doubling takes place by depth when we interject (paremvoli) between the original ranks others of equal strength, so that a compact order arises only by depth. So we can have pyknosis along the length of the phalanx by putting files between files or only along the ranks, thus doubing the depth (in number but not in length), by interjecting files into files! That is, all the men of file A become epistates and ll those in file B parastates! So, military evolutions could indeed be realized by the interjection of files, always as circumstances demanded. As to how this would be possible during battle, I guess that the men would raise their sarissae and march to the left, for their right would be closed by the sarissae of their comrades. There they would reform and lower their pikes, doubling density across the length of the phalanx. This is possible during combat, for only half the pikes are raised and this only for a very limited amount of time. Btw, I do not believe that breaks happened during battle. Most battles only lasted very few hours and allowing the enemy to reform would be really peculiar, if you had the option not to... This is why the multiple line system was devised in the first place, to allow the reforming of lines.
In Ch XII, Asclepiodotus describes how the phalanx closed in from the right, from the left or from both sides ("to the navel") , achieving compact formation and how it could resume its more open state. This evolution is certain to have been carried out only before contact.
It comes to reason, that the ancients had devised many ways to achieve their desired formations and these would be used according to necessity and circumstances. One method would be used at 100 yards from the enemy and maybe another at 1000 yards. One when the line was amidst the fight and another when unengaged. One when they would like to give the impression of outflanking the enemy and another when they would like to appear few etc.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 07-06-2009
Part III, Onasander
Onassander does not actually analyze the Macedonian system, but gives much information on phalanx tactics, one of particular interest to our discussion being the following :
In ch X (The need for drilling the army in times of peace), Onassander talks about the drills of "the passing and repassing of files" (tas di allilon antexodous kai eisodus) among others and about "withdrawing of files for greater depth". So, this is another instance of evidence as to the movement of files between files.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Macedon - 07-06-2009
By the way, a very interesting comment was made by a dear friend of mine and ardent lover of history, who asked me what would be the case with "othismos" and the Iphicratean hoplites. As we all, most probably, know, sometime in the 4th century BC, Iphicrates changed the armament of his hoplites giving them lighter armor, a smaller shield and a longer spear. They were also called "peltasts" and could still fight as hoplites. Would they perform "othismos"? If "othismos" was such a devastatingly important tactic, then why did Iphicrates reduce the hoplon size?
Maybe we should open a new thread about othismos, since we seem to carry out two different discussions here...
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 07-06-2009
Quote:By the way, a very interesting comment was made by a dear friend of mine and ardent lover of history, who asked me what would be the case with "othismos" and the Iphicratean hoplites. As we all, most probably, know, sometime in the 4th century BC, Iphicrates changed the armament of his hoplites giving them lighter armor, a smaller shield and a longer spear. They were also called "peltasts" and could still fight as hoplites. Would they perform "othismos"? If "othismos" was such a devastatingly important tactic, then why did Iphicrates reduce the hoplon size?
I think Iphicratids were specifically designed not to enter othismos, but to match hoplites at doratismos- the longer spears and swords make sense in a the context of avoiding close fighting. That this was insufficient can be shown that these troops did not last long after their initial "success". Iphictates wanted troops that could keep up with his peltasts and yet have enough punch to hit a phalanx. Recall outside Corinth, his peltasts essentially beat the hoplites they attacked and yet were not able to close the deal because they could not come to grips with them. A squad of hoplites was required to eventually break the enemy phalanx.
If "iphicratids" were willing to give ground before a phalanx, and not even all that much ground, there could never be an "othismos". An iphicratid could do all the pre-othismos pushing just as well as a hoplite. Perhaps better if as I suspect he carried an oval, single-central grip pelta like those seen in Thrace, which could be "punched" with. The weakness is that giving ground is always something to be avoided and takes great training to pull off.