+- 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 - 04-09-2009
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:Quote:Then there are the difficulties/impossibilities of moving lines of men, a kilometre long, across typical Greek terrain in 'close order' ........( c.f. Polybius' criticisms of Callisthenes referred to ante)
I think there is ample evidence that they did not do this. They moved a group of units that start off in a rough line at close order, but the many examples we have of units charging at different distances show that there was no expectation to move the whole line in marionette unison such as we might expect from the early modern armies where drill was fetishized. The most gross example of this is that any unit lined up along side Spartans could not have kept pace with them because they marched during the charge while even Spartan trained mercenaries ran. This is not such a problem because a battle line reformed upon contact with enemy units and exploiting such differential arrival times is a lot more difficult for an enemy to do that it appears to us.
Very well, accepting that this is correct, at least for some battles, I think you would grant that at least each contingent within a phalanx maintained cohesion? ( else why would the Spartans march in step?). That being so, 5,000 Spartans at Plataea, formed up, say 8 deep, would occupy 625 yards in close order - and even that length of line would not be practicable to advance in, and maintain close order...... accordingly, such advances/manouevres must have taken place in 'normal'/open order....
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 04-09-2009
Quote: think you would grant that at least each contingent within a phalanx maintained cohesion? ( else why would the Spartans march in step?). That being so, 5,000 Spartans at Plataea, formed up, say 8 deep, would occupy 625 yards in close order - and even that length of line would not be practicable to advance in, and maintain close order...... accordingly, such advances/manouevres must have taken place in 'normal'/open order....
Perhaps, or perhaps only each lochoi maintained internal cohesion. The mercenaries at Cunaxa could be considered a single unit as their remnants would ave been later. Even these men whose training was surely far beyond the farmer or potter come out for muster could not keep a straight line. I think that the incident later, where men are calling to others to not break formation in pursuit does speak to a need to keep formation, but we don't really know on what scale this cohesion manifested itself.
One problem with accepting the opened order advance is that I have real doubts that the generally inexperienced troops of the average phalanx could maintain 6' between files wihtout bunching. If they bunched at all, they were screwed when it came time to double again.
Since I do not believe that the greeks had a 6' and 3' (and 1.5') spacing that we see in later manuals, I think they simply formed up in a natural spacing of 3-4' that men would take if told to stand "next" to eachother. In this they advanced, and if they either kept space between ranks or the men had a simple rule not to move past the man in front, some relative or lover, but to kick him in the bum if he lagged, there would be no mixing of ranks.
A myriad of spacing sins dissapears in the advance as well. The one thing we know for sure about the advance of a phalanx is that the man on the leftmost side veered hundreds of meters to the right on many occaissions. We don't know for sure if the man on the right moved a commensurate amount right. This would be almost impossible for Thucydides to know as well. The famed overlapping right wings could be driven more by the enemy left moving right than by your own men moving in the opposite direction. Thus the spacing tightens up even if they did not begin the move shoulder to shoulder with overlapped shields. If I am correct, then tightening up to the right is a big part of what was taken for gross movement of the phalanx to the right (though surely that occurred as well for reasons I have mentioned previously).
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - MeinPanzer - 04-09-2009
Quote:Ruben wrote:
Quote:The smallest a sarissa could be is 12 feet, which would mean that there is no reason given Diodorus' statement that the spears of the Iphicrateans and the smallest sarissae could not be interchangeable
....where do you get this from? Nowhere that I am aware of is the sarissa described as this short......have you in mind that Macedonian 'prodromoi' ( scouts) were nicknamed 'sarrisaphoroi'?
My mistake, I calculated the shortest length based on Asclepiodotus' minimum length of 10 cubits with the erroneous "short Macedonian cubit" of Tarn.
Quote:The slangy-minded Greeks and Macedonians were as fond of nicknames as we are.......and in that case sarissa might not be a specific weapon (infantry pike 18-24 ft long), with the name mis-applied as a nickname, but instead, as Paralus has suggested, be a more generic 'extra-long spear' and thus anything longer than a 'dory'......except that a 12 ft cavalry spear had a specific name - 'xyston' !
Accordingly, I think 'sarissaphoroi' was just a loose use of the term as a nickname for the 'xyston' armed 'mounted scouts' ('prodromoi')
I like Sekunda's theory about the sarissaphoroi best: that they were a limited experiment in cavalrymen carrying sarissai instead of xysta, much like in the early Modern period during the "Age of the Pike" some lancer cavalry were equipped with infantry pikes. These were clearly short lived, though, and I think that they were separate from the normal lancer cavalry of the Macedonian military.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-09-2009
What Paul B. is expounding is certainly feasible, and very likely to have been the case for the early phalanx. ( but could also apply to 'Homeric Infantry'). Unfortunately, the only 'drill' details we have are those of Xenophon, rather late in the Classical period (fourth century). Xenophon's drill forms are essentially very simple, and it can be seen that they form part of an evolutionary process when comparing them to the later Hellenistic Manual(s), whose drill is much more sophisticated, though some of it was probably never practised on the battlefield.
We may infer that in the earliest phalanx, the men drew up much as you say, as is common with any primitive tribal groups e.g. relatively modern New Guinea natives, or celtic tribes down to the eighteenth century, for whom we have a fair amount of information.
In looking at the Persian Wars we know nothing for certain, though there are clues, I think, that point toward them being more like Xenophon's phalanx rather than what we may call the 'primitive' phalanx.
Quote:One problem with accepting the opened order advance is that I have real doubts that the generally inexperienced troops of the average phalanx could maintain 6' between files wihtout bunching. If they bunched at all, they were screwed when it came time to double again.This is simply not correct. Anyone with experience of drill can tell you that even raw recruits have no trouble maintaining open order at 6 ft intervals. Remember that any 'bunching' ( and I don't think this would or could occur to any great degree) would not occur whilst in the marching/movement phase, but probably only when the Phalanx charged, after 'closing up' and then the men are already 'shield to shield', and can hardly bunch much more, except possibly the rightward drift, which would start with the commander on the right flank edging to his right, shieldless, side so as not to be outflanked, and the others staying in touch...
Quote:I think that the incident later, where men are calling to others to not break formation in pursuit does speak to a need to keep formation, but we don't really know on what scale this cohesion manifested itself....I would suggest that the opposite conclusion can be drawn here - that the "Ten Thousand" displayed a very high dgree of discipline and cohesion.
At the "rehearsal" when Cyrus inspected them. the 10,400 Hoplites formed up 4 deep in close order, probaly flanked either side by the 2,500 Peltasts.
If we consider the Hoplites alone, they formed a front of 2,600 yards (2,400 metres). Cyrus inspected them, then asked them to demonstrate a 'charge'. The orders were passed verbally, and the signal to advance was given by trumpet. Spears were lowered, and they advanced at the walk, quickening their pace to the jog which was the charge, and raising a war-cry. At this point the terrified native audience panicked and scattered. This was quite some feat, to have maintained such a line unbroken.
At the battle itself, Cyrus' army was caught still on the march, by the larger army of Artaxerxes.The Cyreans were alerted by the usual distant clouds of dust. The Greeks hastily deployed. The Persians were formed up in tribal contingents each in a 'dense oblong formation'. They came on in a slow steady march ( doubtless because, being undisciplined, they were having 'dressing' problems of their own.) The Greeks remained stationary, while their march column deployed into line. Their right flank was on a river. Cyrus wanted the Greeks to attack the Persian centre, where Artaxerxes would be, but Clearchus, the Greek commander was concerned about his flank and wanted to stay in touch with the river. With the armies some 600 yards or so apart, and the Persians still coming on, they sang the Paean and began to move forward at the walk, just like the 'rehearsal'. As the advance accelerated, part of the phalanx began to get ahead ( probably on one wing or the other), and the remainder 'straightened' the line by moving at the double.They then raised the War-Cry "Eleleleu..." and accelerated to a run. They were now somewhere around 100 yards apart ( effective bow range) and just as at the rehearsal, the Persians broke and ran. The Greeks then turned their charge into a pursuit, and then carried out one of the most difficult acts of battlefield discipline. Throughout military history, once an enemy turns his back and runs, the stress of battle and fear vanish in the victors, and an almost unstoppable urge to 'get after them' takes over which breaks up cohesion, most especially among cavalry. Many battles have been lost by this wild pursuit phenomenon, including this one.
On this occasion the "Ten Thousand" were disciplined enough to shout to each other not to run all out, and thereby lose cohesion, but to follow up the enemy without breaking ranks. Few armies in History have been capable of doing the same. The Greeks lost only one man on the left wing to an arrow. Some of the scythed chariots, abandoned by their drivers, came their way, but they simply 'opened out' and let them through.
Later in the same battle, Cyrus ' cavalry bodyguard of 600 cavalry lost their cohesion in their eagerness to pursue, which led to Cyrus' death, and despite the Greeks success, the battle was lost.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 04-10-2009
Quote:What Paul B. is expounding is certainly feasible, and very likely to have been the case for the early phalanx. ( but could also apply to 'Homeric Infantry').
I agree. As I said from the start we should not doubt that by Xenophon's date the drill you describe so well was in place for at least the best trained units such as his mercs and the Spartans. I would add two caveats: 1) surely less preffesional musters of part time soldiers lagged behind in the learning of this drill and in fact may never have. 2) We can't be sure that this drill was in any way standard or the only way of doing things.
We also don't have enough evidence to show that they initially formed in opened order instead of simply lining up, then doubled to form close order. I have no problem at all with the idea that they double as you describe down to the penultimate double- for which I would posit a rank 4 wide by 8 deep for an enomotiai of 32 as thukydides describes. So we are halfway in agreement!
Quote:This is simply not correct. Anyone with experience of drill can tell you that even raw recruits have no trouble maintaining open order at 6 ft intervals.
I don't agree, but the point is moot until someone reenacts it. One thing though, if they do bunch up- a very natural thing to do- when shoulder to shoulder, they will simply squeeze a man ou of line and cause him to stand behind the rest of the rank, extending the file by 1. If two adjacent men in rank bunch in opened order, then they choke off any attempt at doubling.
Quote:...I would suggest that the opposite conclusion can be drawn here - that the "Ten Thousand" displayed a very high dgree of discipline and cohesion....With the armies some 600 yards or so apart, and the Persians still coming on, they sang the Paean and began to move forward at the walk, just like the 'rehearsal'. As the advance accelerated, part of the phalanx began to get ahead ( probably on one wing or the other), and the remainder 'straightened' the line by moving at the double....On this occasion the "Ten Thousand" were disciplined enough to shout to each other not to run all out, and thereby lose cohesion, but to follow up the enemy without breaking ranks.
I was agreeing with you. This incident shows that they could and desired to maintain cohesion, and not run pell mell after a fleeing foe. One reason for this is that since they were not coming up against another unit, there was not "wall of men" to force them to form a line of their own. This force should not be underestimated. One reason why drill became so important in linear combat with firearms is that you had to stop your troops cold at a virtual line in the sand toopen fire and hope they would all stop at roughly the same time. Pulling up just prior to collision with aother unit leds this organization naturally. What we don't know from that incident is if this cohesion was a local phenomenon. Did they stop persuit in a long line, or, more likely to me, did each unit pull up the men within shouting distance.
Quote:Some of the scythed chariots, abandoned by their drivers, came their way, but they simply 'opened out' and let them through.
They would have been in close order, so how was this done in your scheme?
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-10-2009
Paul B wrote:
Quote:I don't agree, but the point is moot until someone reenacts it....this is why I tend to get frustrated! It doesn't need "re-enactors" to perform this experiment....military recruits literally do this every day, all over the world!
I reckon I could teach anyone/a bunch of people, who had never done drill in their lives, to efficiently perform all of Xenophon's drll in an hour or two at most. This level of drill is easily achievable by even the most amateur of Hoplite Militias, then or now!
I don't doubt that Kineas' group have no qualms that they will easily do this, if they haven't already.
As to avoiding the chariots, Xenophon doesn't record a drill for this, nor would a formal one be necessary....those in the path of a chariot would simply get out of the way ( not difficult 4 deep) and reform afterward....1 man was in fact frozen with fear, and run down, but came to no harm.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 04-10-2009
Quote: reckon I could teach anyone/a bunch of people, who had never done drill in their lives, to efficiently perform all of Xenophon's drll in an hour or two at most. This level of drill is easily achievable by even the most amateur of Hoplite Militias, then or now!
I reckon you could teach the marching band of girl's school to do it as well, but this has little bearing on battlefield realities. I'd like to see a thousand yard line of your recruits at 6' spacing move over complex terrain into the teeth of the enemy- all the while veering signifcantly to the right. Bunching is a perennial problem with men under fire or entering danger.
You have asserted that men cannot advance at a more natural spacing, just over a body-width- and I don't buy it. There are many examples of troops advancing as I suggest:
They do it at Yorktown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFZ2I0Fl ... re=related
Ticonderoga:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_AKmHfJ ... re=related
Evidently Johnny Reb can do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bThpbigi ... re=related
Vikings can do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLreqv5D ... re=related
These guys can even do it in the face of deadly CGI while being hounded by a DIRECTOR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdm7UAr ... re=related
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-10-2009
Paul B. wrote:
Quote:I'd like to see a thousand yard line of your recruits at 6' spacing move over complex terrain into the teeth of the enemy- all the while veering signifcantly to the right. Bunching is a perennial problem with men under fire or entering danger....again, I don't think you've properly envisaged what Xenophon/I have described. The normal/open order is used for marching and, once the Phalanx is deployed into line, the 'approach march' ( see e.g. the description of Issus earlier by Callisthenes), out of range of the enemy and usually screened by light infantry/psiloi. Once the lights are recalled, or fall back through the Phalanx, the order is given to 'close up'.The 'advance to contact'/charge is then carried out in close order into "the teeth of the enemy" at a distance of roughly 1-200 yards ( across the effective missile zone).Any veering to the right occurs at this time, as men edge closer to their companions shields, and the Commander, generally on the right flank, endeavours to avoid outflanking and edges right....
Bunching is unlikely, partly because of the size of the shields, held flat across the body for maximum protection, which also serve as natural 'spacers', and because the 'bunching under fire' you refer to is a modern phenomenon, of troops spread widely seeking moral support from their fellow-soldiers - Greek hoplites are already as close as they can be.
Quote:You have asserted that men cannot advance at a more natural spacing, just over a body-width- and I don't buy it. There are many examples of troops advancing as I suggest:I haven't asserted that at all!
But an advance over a long distance, when trees, rocks ponds and other obstacles must be circumnavigated, is far easier in an open order than close.
Also, there is no "6ft spacing" The Hoplite with shield protruding to his right occupies 3 feet of the 6, leaving just enough room for another to 'close up' ( i.e. 3 feet gap between soldiers in 'open order' )
I'm afraid I don't find the clips relevant at all.....I thought your argument was that amateur militia hoplites couldn't/didn't perform rigid automaton 18 C. style drill ? The 'vikings' are a joke.....
And in any event, as I've just explained, and earlier ( see e.g. description of Persian advance at Cunaxa) that the final advance to contact is performed in close order - whether we are talking Barbarians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans....whatever!!
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 04-10-2009
Quote:...again, I don't think you've properly envisaged what Xenophon/I have described. The normal/open order is used for marching and, once the Phalanx is deployed into line, the 'approach march' ( see e.g. the description of Issus earlier by Callisthenes), out of range of the enemy and usually screened by light infantry/psiloi. Once the lights are recalled, or fall back through the Phalanx, the order is given to 'close up'.The 'advance to contact'/charge is then carried out in close order into "the teeth of the enemy" at a distance of roughly 1-200 yards ( across the effective missile zone).Any veering to the right occurs at this time, as men edge closer to their companions shields, and the Commander, generally on the right flank, endeavours to avoid outflanking and edges right....
Alexander marched 40 Stades! His more advanced drill may well have allowed him to do this in opened order. The greeks at Cunaxa deployed from column, the normal way to move men over distance, into a battle line in close order and did not budge until the armies were 4 stadia apart! Xenophon's men could march all the way into battle in columns of Lochoi if they desired. There was no reason to switch their spacing after initial deployment to move such a small distance. The only reason to do so would be to allow light troops to move through the line, but since we know again from Cunaxa that even in close order they could somehow open repeatedly for chariots, they surely could open from close order for psiloi.
Quote:Once the lights are recalled, or fall back through the Phalanx, the order is given to 'close up'.The 'advance to contact'/charge is then carried out in close order into "the teeth of the enemy" at a distance of roughly 1-200 yards ( across the effective missile zone).Any veering to the right occurs at this time, as men edge closer to their companions shields
Clearly this is not what occurred at Mantinea. The Veering occurred prior to the charge or else there in no way Agis could attempt to counter it. The fact that they do veer to get under the shield of their neighbor only makes sense if they were close enough to do so!
Quote:Bunching is unlikely, partly because of the size of the shields, held flat across the body for maximum protection, which also serve as natural 'spacers', and because the 'bunching under fire' you refer to is a modern phenomenon, of troops spread widely seeking moral support from their fellow-soldiers - Greek hoplites are already as close as they can be.
Right, so they were in close order because trying to march in opened order, 6' spacing implies roughly 3' intervals between men since the man is roughly 3' wide given the apis, would leave room for them to bunch.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - agesilaos3 - 04-11-2009
I hope this doesn't seem as just another attack on on poor old Scipio, so to state my position positively it is that Greek authors state the depth of a phalanx as the actual fighting depth not a notional double spaced marching depth i.e. the default position.
If Scipio is basing his theories on passages in the Cyropaedia then I must ask him to give us the quotes; not because I think they will prove flawed but because I have no access to that work and even at uni did not relish the 'wade'.
The closest to an infantry drill from Xenophon that I have comes in 'The constitution of the Lacedaimonians' chapters 10 and 11, I think, where aside from decribing the level of officering he details the measures taken when meeting the enemy on the march. The enomotae wheel into their positions on a frontage of six, three or and here the text is corrupt and whilst the Loeb suggests two I think one more likely for reasons of symmetry. It is obvious that the enomotia could form on a single man frontage notional thirty-six man depth (never occurs in the texts, though) three men would be the normal depth of twelve and six by half-files to form a 'thin' line. Incidently, he also describes countermarching by rank so not all drill was by file. What he does not describe is the doubling of density by the interspersion of half march-file. He assumes the line is formed in fighting order. The problem here is that if the Spartans are thirty-six deep on Scipio's model they fight eighteen deep but every other file is headed by a non-officer, in fact the weakest men in the formation. Given Xenophon's repeated stressing of the strength of the Spartan system being the fact that all the files are led by officers and that makes the proposed drill unlikely.
Unless there is something in Aelian, which I lack, (I have read some books, honest) all the drills for forming closer order are by the men stepping closer together in both dimensions. I instinctively prefer Scipio's notion of files inteposing themselves though certainly at more than 100 yards, having your own supports running back through your formation and then having to half your files with alot of men with pointy sticks running at you would need more 'sang-froid' than most hoplites possessed. You not only have to achieve the formation but it also has to 'set', like a rugby scrum ; one need only watch a game involving the undersized scrum of our antipodean cousins pushing prematurely at a formed but not yet 'set' English scrum (and then being awarded the penalty by a blind South African ref with... I digress). The risk would be magnified in the face of cavalry and the deep formations favoured by the Thebans, quite successfully (dammit) would actually be riskier to execute; it would take eight times as long for the Thebans to reduce to twenty-five ranks as a 'standard' phalanx to go to four and it brings the wrong men to the front. At Leuctra the Sacred Band formed the cutting edge of the Theban 'embolon' ; now, it could be that they halved their files and charged and then their rear-support finished doubling and charged into their rear but that would make for a strange tactic although the Theban attack does seem to grow in strength I would rather interpret that as the presure from the rear buiding gradually in the othismos rather than a sudden rush from the rear that would disorder the Sacred Band.
Flicking through Xenophon's 'Hellenica' I find no instances of light troops actually fighting in front of the phalanx; they appear harassing marches but not the approach of the enemy hoplites so I wonder whether that is just modern interpretation rather than ancient practice. Indeed during the assault on the Piraeus rebels II 4? the light troops are behind the hoplites the oligarchs fifty shields deep; if this is at double spacing then why aren't the lights out front instead of where as Theramenes observes they are useless?
That anomalies may still exist I don't doubt for instance Thucydides' Spartans on a frontage of four! Though it is admitted that he is confused somewhere.
If you have a reference for a detailed map of Nemea that would be good to look at as Xenophon does give numbers and a depth for the coalition, sixteen, but the Boeotians went 'much deeper', etc. but without a picture of the terrain it is pretty pointless. this cannot have been a featureless plain as the Allied approach was a surprise, did the Spartans not believe in vedettes? And the Spartans managed to catch the victorious allies unawares and in the flank.
Maybe if we restrict ourselves to a proper look at one instance things will seem less antagonistic.
The Macedonians will have to wait a bit.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 04-11-2009
Quote:If Scipio is basing his theories on passages in the Cyropaedia then I must ask him to give us the quotes; not because I think they will prove flawed but because I have no access to that work and even at uni did not relish the 'wade'.
Paul's analysis of the following drill is spot on as far as I am concerned. My issue is how this translated into drill on the battlefield- when, where, and by whom is was used. You'll note that they do not initially double down to files of 6, but stop at files of 12 as I believe they normally did in battle formation. Paul, not without reason, believes that because they were moving into dinner they would have stopped in the penultimate, opened order. I think it more likely that in going to 6 then display a capability to double once beyond what they would normally do on a battlefield. Significantly the move to 6 is seperated from the rest textually and I have noticed it is left out of some translation- troubling for my faith in the other translations. I posted the greek in case someone literate can take a look for us.
[Xen. Cyrop. 2.3.21] from Persus at Tufts
Quote:And once he saw another captain leading his company up from the river left about in single file and ordering when he thought it was proper, the second division and then the third and the fourth to advance to the front; and when the lieutenants were in a row in front, he ordered each division to march up in double file. Thus the sergeants came to stand on the front line. Again, when he thought proper, he ordered the divisions to line up four abreast; in this formation, then, the corporals in their turn came to stand four abreast in each division; and when they arrived at the doors of the tent, he commanded them to fall into single file again, and in this order he led the first division into the tent; the second he ordered to fall in line behind the first and follow, and, giving orders in like manner to the third and fourth, he led them inside. And when he had thus led them all in, he gave them their places at dinner in the order in which they came in. Pleased with him for his gentleness of discipline and for his painstaking, Cyrus invited this company also with its captain to dinner.
With another doubling up of ranks, they assume a front of sixteen men and a depth of six:
Finally in these groups of six each, they are led, single file, in to dinner.
Quote:????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ????, ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????, ????????????? ??? ??????? ????? ????????, ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????????, ??? ???????, ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????, ??????????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????: ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????????? ??? ???????: ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????, ??????????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????: ???? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? ??????? ??? ????????: ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????, ??????????? ?? ??? ??? [??????] ?????? ??? ?????? ?????, ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ???????, ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ???: ???? ?? ????????? ?????????? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?????????????: ?????? ??? ? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ????????? ??? ??????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????????.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 04-12-2009
Quote:You not only have to achieve the formation but it also has to 'set', like a rugby scrum ; one need only watch a game involving the undersized scrum of our antipodean cousins pushing prematurely at a formed but not yet 'set' English scrum (and then being awarded the penalty by a blind South African ref with... I digress).
You cheeky bugger!
That is not how I recall the "battle of Twickenham", November 2008. Indeed my "Foxidides" related the destruction of the English phalanx..err...scrum meticulously. Even to the killing off of its officer, one Sheridan.
Paullus and I have agreed to....recognise my extremely valid points. And, if you believe that, you'll believe we were sober by the end of the night...morning. As sober as Alexander at Medius' party that wopuld be.
Anyhow, the kids await: off the Wet'n'Wild Water world, Sea World, Warner Bros Movie Land or some such. Liquor Land later....
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-12-2009
Paralus/Michael wrote:
Quote:Paullus and I have agreed to....recognise my extremely valid points.....actually, my recollection is that we agreed a goodly number of things, in the course of an evening that passed all too quickly, and discovered we had a great deal in common...not sure if that's a good thing or not! :wink:
D lol:
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - agesilaos3 - 04-12-2009
Paralus, of course I was being cheeky, like Xenophon I look back to the glory days when we had discipline I'd whine on to put my pommie credentials beyond doubt but this isn't a rugger forum! Dare I mention the Ashes?
I'll have a look at the Greek, half of it has come out as little squares but I should be able to work it out. I must say though that it would admit of more than one interpretation and does seem to parallel the passage in the Constitution on the Lakedaimonians which I'll have to post. There I don't think there is much doubt that the evolutions are in close order, in the face of a formed enemy; I've had some ropey meals but none have ever got up and attacked me.
Glad you found plenty of common ground, there is not much that isn't really down to subjective interpretation in ancient history and I always think it is best to adopt AJP Taylor's position of 'having strong opinions, weakly held'.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 04-13-2009
I remain utterly unconvinced on the Macedonian phalanx fighting in files of eight. Sorry, that should be half files of eight.
I believe also that I may finally have convinced the good Paullus that Eumenes did, in no way, outnumber Antigonus in phalanx "heavy" infantry at Gabiene. Demonstrably - as I have it rendered in the article - Eumenes is outnumbered some 22,000 to 17,000. That Eumenes' were the better is clearly demonstrated during the course of the battle (and a Paraetecene).
Pity about his camp "security".