+- 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 - 04-13-2009
Paralus/Michael wrote:
Quote: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.
Eee...rr...rrr.... No, in fact.
D
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 04-13-2009
Quote:Eee...rr...rrr.... No, in fact. The sources would have it rather differently, with the caveat that all is open to "interpretation"....
You'll have to quote me the passage that states that Eumenes fielded more "heavy" phalanx infantry than Antigonus. Diodorus is alarmingly clear on this point. And, before the issue of "interpretation" is raised to colour matters, remember we are dealing with a "satrapal" coalition of the "upper" satrapies: the cypher for that interpretation. Peucestas, alone, is noted as adding a further 10,000 "bowmen" from Persia. Although Eumenes' army numbered "36,700 at this time" the vast majority of of that ilk. The only attested "heavy" phalanx infantry number 17,000. This accords well with the 13,000 odd he left Cilicia with.
I doubt he stood Persian bowmen and other such in the pahalanx line to simply fill out some.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-14-2009
Paralus/Michael wrote:
Quote:I remain utterly unconvinced on the Macedonian phalanx fighting in files of eight. Sorry, that should be half files of eight....except that we are told, by an eye-witness (?), Kallikrates, that they did just that ( fought 8 deep)at Issus, and we are told of no other depth in action......
Furthermore, the manuals tell us that there were 'Half-file leaders'/hemilochites, and 'Quarter-file leaders'/enomotarchs. What purpose would these serve if whole files of 16 were the order in which they fought, and they never closed any further ?
On the other hand, it fits perfectly if your file of 16 in 'open order' closes up to 8 in 'half-file close order', the normal fighting formation/depth, and then on some occasions closes up even more to form 'locked shields/synaspismos' 4 deep......
Note that this also has the beauty that the bulk of the fighting men (5 of 8 ranks) are able to participate in battle, unlike '16 deep' where 11 ranks - 11/16 ths - of the men present are reduced to spectators, and those at the back of the crowd could have no idea of what was happening at the front.....on practical grounds alone, an actual battle- formation 16 deep is fairly unlikely.
A detailed study of the Manuals, and of the earlier drill of Xenophon, together with a working knowledge of real drill would convince you otherwise, and not only that, but the evolutionary process of Greek Drill can be seen.....
I am all but certain Hoplites fought in 'half-files' in close order, so that when a depth of 8 is described, the men actually fought 4 deep, as Xenophon tells us, or a Spartan phalanx 12 deep actually fought 6 deep. Similarly, the Macedonian phalanx described as '16 deep' normally, and which was this depth 95% of the time, closed up to half-files of 8 deep just before colliding with the enemy, as Kallikrates tells us ( and on occasions formed 'synaspismos' just 4 deep, with each man on an 18 inch frontage, standing side on.....)
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-14-2009
Well we are into another 'off-topic' digression, and it might be better to start a new thread on this subject after the appearance of your Gabiene article in AW magazine.........but for now, some short comments.
The main source for numbers etc is Diodorus XIX.27 on, but there are some difficulties with the text, not least being that Diodorus figures for individual units falls some 2,000 short of the totals he gives for Antigonus' army (c.f. XIX.29), which are "more than"28,000 foot "in all", 8,500 horse and 65 elephants before the earlier battle of Paraitakene.
Eumenes Infantry numbered some 35,000 or so in total, 6,300 cavalry and 125 elephants - and the Phalanx was broken down as 6,000 mercenaries ( who would have been largely peltasts), next 5,000 men of all races equipped in the "macedonian' fashion, then the 'Argyraspides'/silvershields, over 3,000 and finally his Guard, his 'Hypaspists', also over 3,000 strong.These were augmented by 18,000 other infantry ( mostly light and skirmishing native peltast-types) of whom some 10,000 were Persian archers and slingers.....
For the campaign, Eumenes seemingly begins with significantly more Infantry and elephants, but fewer cavalry.
After his losses at Parataikene, Antigonus' Infantry are down to 22,000 Infantry, the same 65 elephants and he has increased his cavalry to 9,000, re-inforcements having been recruited in Media.
Diodorus gives Eumenes 36,700 'foot soldiers', 6,000 horse and 114 elephants.
On the face of it therefore, Diodorus says that Eumenes heavily outnumbered Antigonus in Infantry at Gabiene.
However, ( there is always one of these, isn't there? :wink: ) a closer look at the figure for Parataikene reveals that Antigonus' Infantry are ALL 'line troops' of the Phalanx - viz 9,000 mercenaries/peltasts, then 3,000 Lycians and Pamphylians, then 'more than' 8,000 mixed troops in Macedonian equipment, and finally 'nearly' 8,000 Macedonians ( equals 28,000). In other words, no figure is included for the 'light Infantry' which Antigonus must have had. Again, for Gabiene too, it would appear no figure for Antigonus' light troops is given.
For some reason, Diodorus, or rather his source, has given no figures at all in the campaign for Antigonus' light troops.......
Thus, Paralus is right to say that in 'Line/Heavy' Infantry, Eumenes is outnumbered. Further, if we discount the 'Peltasts' on each side and look at 'Heavy Infantry' proper, then we have something like 11-12,000 for Eumenes and 15,000 for Antigonus ( assuming losses at Parataikene fell fairly evenly), or even fewer if the bulk of the losses at Partaikene were from among those armed in the 'macedonian' manner, as one might expect - so not much in it.
If we were to make a guess at Antigonus' "missing" light troops , we might allow 11,000 plus ( judging by the usual ratio) - which would give a total only slightly fewer overall than Eumenes, and perhaps they were on a par, or Antigonus may just have been superior, depending how many levied light Infantry he had.
It pays to examine these source accounts in detail, and I own that in looking at Diodorus' figures uncritically, I erred and that when it came to the Hoplites and 'Macedonian' armed troops - the ones that really counted - Antigonus had the slight superiority, as Paralus says. :oops: :oops:
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 04-14-2009
Quote:...except that we are told, by an eye-witness (?), Kallikrates, that they did just that ( fought 8 deep)at Issus, and we are told of no other depth in action......
Again, you make far too much of the very scant evidence. There is another reason the Macedonian line was eight deep; it does not suit your argument though. Nor does taking Polyibios at what he clearly writes therefore you insist on an "understanding" not stated. It is not anywhere near as straightforward as you'd have it believed.
Yes, I know: I do not know drill.....
Quote:Furthermore, the manuals tell us that there were 'Half-file leaders'/hemilochites, and 'Quarter-file leaders'/enomotarchs. What purpose would these serve if whole files of 16 were the order in which they fought, and they never closed any further...
Do they tell us this for the army under discussion? The army of Issos? Do we have any clear statement naming half file leaders in Alexander's phalanx? And, if there were "half" file leaders does that not indicate that the usual was "full file" (that is, 16)?
As to the silly statement of the "others" being reduced to "spectators", your own preferred source (Polybios) clearly explains what they add to a phalanx "when sixteen deep".
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 04-14-2009
I'm glad, by the way, that you've noticed that Eumenes was some 5,000 phalanx infantry short of Antigonus. Greek sources don't accord too much respect or scribe time to bowmen and the others that the upper satrapies contributed here.
Antigonus' Paraetecene numbers are "heavy infantry" only. Just as Diodorus only bothers himself with enumerating Eumenes' "heavy infantry" at Gabiene. This import is abundantly clear: the latter's phalanx was shy some 5,000 hence the "loading" of the left wing with which Eumenes led and the refused right. The battle would be decided on the generals' side of the field.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-14-2009
Paralus wrote:
Quote:Again, you make far too much of the very scant evidence.....well, the evidence is 'scant' for any aspect of Greek or Roman Military history, with many'gaps' and unknown mysteries, and a great deal of history of which we know absolutely nothing.
Here too, the evidence is 'scant' I'll grant you, if taken in isolation.
However, when put together and a 'holistic' approach applied, a consistent picture emerges.
For instance...
Quote:Do they tell us this for the army under discussion? The army of Issos? Do we have any clear statement naming half file leaders in Alexander's phalanx? And, if there were "half" file leaders does that not indicate that the usual was "full file" (that is, 16)?That is a sophist's trick to attempt isolate an argument. I am speaking of Greek/Hellenistic drill generally and the idea that depths are quoted by most ancient authors for troops in 'normal' order, and that this halved into 'close' order before contact. If we are not specifically told of 'half-file leaders' in Alexander's army ( and I haven't carried out an exhaustive search), we certainly know that 'half' and 'quarter' file leaders existed in Xenophon's time, and that 'Dilochites'(double file leaders) also existed in both Xenophon's time and that of the Manuals.... we may therefore assume continuity as highly likely.
And yes, the 'normal' file usually stood 16 deep, except when going into action, as I have described. That's the point. The file 'normally' stood 16 deep, and only closed up for action. For all other purposes it stood in 'normal' ( open) order.....
Further, in Arrian's version, he specifically tells us he is drawing on a number of Greek Tactical manuals -Clearchus,Pausanias, Evangelus,Empolemus and Iphicrates (not the famous Athenian), Polybius and Poseidonius of Rhodes. He refers to Hoplite equipment as well as Macedonian, and states categorically that he has "given an account of the old Greek and Macedonian formations..."
That being so, and a continuity seen from Xenophon down to the Hellenistic Manuals, it would be a brave scholar who would say "except in Alexander's army", especially when what we are given - scant though it may be - is consistent with all the other evidence. ( How could Alexander's phalanx get down to 'half-files ' of 8 at Issos, which we are told they did, if there were no 'half-file leaders?)
Quote:As to the silly statement of the "others" being reduced to "spectators", your own preferred source (Polybios) clearly explains what they add to a phalanx "when sixteen deep".
The statement is not "silly" at all. Many learned military commentators down the centuries have been concerned that such a formation is really far too deep to be effective or practical. And Polybius' statement is just as consistent, not to mention more logical, when the file of 16 he refers to closes up to 8 just before contact, for then the back 3 ranks " add their weight" to the front 5. ( it being appreciated that this "adding weight" can only occur when the two respective front ranks are in contact, fighting, and perhaps shoving if we take the term literally). The idea of 11 men, though, leaning against the front 5.......
I notice you studiously avoid answering my question of just what the half and quarter file leaders are for.....nor do I see any attempt to come up with an alternative explanation which fits our 'scanty' knowledge better, or is consistent with ALL the known facts......
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - agesilaos3 - 04-14-2009
No time for a full exposition but if the rear eleven ranks are spectators what are the rear twenty ranks of Thebans, on your reckoning, doing?
The manuals are all well and good but they are written with a view to the 'perfect' phalanx by philospers not soldiers - there are no 'syntagmai' in Polybios but 'speirai' nor do I recall any epigraphic evidence for most of the officers mentioned; though there is little enough for the ones in the 'historical' sources!
There are other reasons for having officers at more frequent intervals in the file; the one mentioned by Xenophon being the speedy transmission of orders.
Polybios' closing criticism of Kallisthenes is also made a nonsense by your system, to whit he says he should have described the correct evolutions as from a double or even quadruple phalanx but if the battle line is eight deep then this is just what has been described! Some cheer for your view may be had, though in that, although he is thinking of a depth of sixteen surely he is also thinking of looser spaced men filling the formation from the rear; though I wonder if they don't march behind the file space they will fill a la Roman Republican quincunx. Alexander approached Granicus in a double phalanx and this may well be further indication of drill approaching your idea,though I would think the phalanx formed properly much sooner than you suggest. Despite Polybios' protests at Issos it marched 30 stades (according to Curtius) formed up (en machen in Arrian forgotten the Latin, doh!). Polybios amongst his many gaffs when regaling Kallisthenes accepts with no demur his description of the terrain (I don't think Polybios ever went to Syria in his travels) the difficulties of which were exagerated for propaganda purposes; for despite Polybios' averring that no phalanx could make the march it is quite clear that Alexander's did.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Sean Manning - 04-14-2009
Quote:Furthermore, the manuals tell us that there were 'Half-file leaders'/hemilochites, and 'Quarter-file leaders'/enomotarchs. What purpose would these serve if whole files of 16 were the order in which they fought, and they never closed any further ?In the tactical system of the manuals, the extra officers provided leaders if the phalanx closed up to the closest order (1 cubit per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16) or needed to produce a longer line than usual (2 cubits per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16). Aelian states (Aelian 4.3) that the depths he gives can be doubled or halved as the situation demands. This makes sense if the normal depths are 2 files (marching order), 1 file (fighting order), and 1/2 file (synaspimos). He mentions half-file leaders, but only mentions quarter-files in passing as part of an alternative system of terms which he doesn't use.
I think the Swiss show that pike formations deeper than 8 are perfectly practical, despite doubts by some scholars. Precise information on the depth of Swiss formations is hard to find, but their columns were much more than 8 deep.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 04-14-2009
Quote:The file 'normally' stood 16 deep, and only closed up for action. For all other purposes it stood in 'normal' ( open) order.....
Paul, my problem with your position is not so much with the ultimate number of ranks. I think it clear that they could form in either files of 8 or 4 as need be. I see no evidence of this normal, opened order you describe. You are assuming this in order to allow men to form 8 or so deep as just about all authors say, then have room to double down to 4 or so before charging. As far as I know there is no direct evidence for this opened order and less for a last minute closing of ranks. You avoided addressing Mantinea, where surely the lateral veering and attempts to counter it by moving whole units happened during the approach to battle- not the last 100- 150m charge. I do not believe that men would hold the 3' opened space between themselves and the next man while also attempting to cover themselves with his shield.
The number of men in a file had to be somewhat flexible or else how could the allies expect the Thebans to be able to choose between forming not more than 16 deep or forming deeper (25?) as they did?
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-16-2009
Quote:Quote:The file 'normally' stood 16 deep, and only closed up for action. For all other purposes it stood in 'normal' ( open) order.....
Paul, my problem with your position is not so much with the ultimate number of ranks. I think it clear that they could form in either files of 8 or 4 as need be.
Yes, varying the depth in this way is essentially a very simple system, which is almost universal. (Xenophon Cyropaedia II.3.21 for anyone who wants to look at it.) I have sent you this with explanation and diagrams, ....the meaning is so obvious... ! The final depth is largely governed by the number of men in each file, which in turn is governed by the number of age-groups called up. The number of ranks varied according to how often the file could be doubled/halved, depending in turn on how many fractions with leaders the file had ( half/quarter is usual).This results in depths of 8,10 ( only once, but probably the 'original/archaic' depth) 12 and 16 in open/normal order, halved for close combat in close order
I see no evidence of this normal, opened order you describe.
It is well described in the manuals, but since we are here discussing Greek Hoplites, there are a number of references to 'normal/open' and 'close' order in Xenophon - some of which I have referred to you in private correspondence long ago! e.g. against a Spartan attack along a road in column (Xen: VII.4.22" But the Arcadians stood firm.They formed up in close order and stood quietly...He (Spartan Archidamus) led his men up in double file, just as they were on the march, and so as the troops came to close quarters, the troops of Archidamus, marching, as they were along a road, were in column, and the Arcadians were in close order, shield to shield....."
For a reference to 'open' order Xen V.1.12 during an ambush by the Athenian Chabrias and his peltasts"...when the vanguard had gone past the ambush, Chabrias' men came out of hiding and at once hurled javelins and stones on the enemy.The Hoplites who had landed from the ships came into action simultaneously. The men in the van, who were not marching in close order, were quickly killed and among the dead were Gorgopas himself and the other (8)Spartan Homioi...."
You are assuming this in order to allow men to form 8 or so deep as just about all authors say, then have room to double down to 4 or so before charging. As far as I know there is no direct evidence for this opened order and less for a last minute closing of ranks.
see above...the Arcadians form close order just before contact, and in the other example the Spartan allies are caight in ambush in open order and there is evidently little/no time to close up...
You avoided addressing Mantinea,
No I don't 'avoid' at all....I can't refer to every battle ! Just take them up as people refer to them
where surely the lateral veering and attempts to counter it by moving whole units happened during the approach to battle- not the last 100- 150m charge. I do not believe that men would hold the 3' opened space between themselves and the next man while also attempting to cover themselves with his shield.
The 3 ft space is only in open order.At Mantinea (Thuc V.66 ff), we are told that the armies were already on the move in the final advance to contact ( i.e. had halted,'closed up', and moved off again in 'close order'. There was the famous 'rightward drift', and at this late stage Agis ordered two of his units to move left ( the sciritae and Brasideoi), and for two others who were part of the right to pull out of line and fill the gap. At such a late stage in the advance to contact, with the armies probably not much more than 100-200 yds apart, the two regimental commanders refused to move, and a gap duly opened up which the enemy exploited.( Notice that unlike in Macedonian/Hellenistic times, there was no drill to expand laterally) I would agree all units were most likely in close order. What is your point?The number of men in a file had to be somewhat flexible or else how could the allies expect the Thebans to be able to choose between forming not more than 16 deep or forming deeper (25?) as they did?
I have to rush out now....give me the reference and I'll look it up and explain... :wink:
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paralus - 04-16-2009
Quote: It is well described in the manuals, but since we are here discussing Greek Hoplites, there are a number of references to 'normal/open' and 'close' order in Xenophon...
And Xenophon has exactly what to do with the Macedonian phalanx? What exactly does supposed Archaic and "classical" hoplite "drill" have to do with the Macedonian phalanx? This being a phalanx that the sources clearly differentiate from the classical city state phalanx.
It is clear, to me at least, that the "Macedonian phalanx" was a different critter from the city state hoplite muster. You, though, insist on equating the two. Worse, you aduce Xenophon's fiction of the "Cyropaedia" - Asians as Greeks...well at least the "good" Asians.
The bottom line here is that we have a clear description of the effect of a Macedonian phalanx "when sixteen deep" that you insist on being rendered as eight.
I fail to to see it still. Your demands - from others - for a wholistic "hypothesis" explaining all ancient sources, which are most unforthcoming, is no ipso-facto substantiation of your own flawed hypothesis based on stretched, scant evidence.
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-16-2009
Quote:Paullus Scipio:345c6lb5 Wrote:It is well described in the manuals, but since we are here discussing Greek Hoplites, there are a number of references to 'normal/open' and 'close' order in Xenophon...
And Xenophon has exactly what to do with the Macedonian phalanx? What exactly does supposed Archaic and "classical" hoplite "drill" have to do with the Macedonian phalanx? This being a phalanx that the sources clearly differentiate from the classical city state phalanx.
It is readily apparent from our sources/manuals that Phalanx drill, both Greek and Macedonian were evolutionary in nature - indeed the manuals say so.Further, it is not I who have taken the topic of depth from Macedonians to Greeks and back again, though given the evolutionary nature of Phalanx drill, it is understandable that the participants have included references to both. We could just as easily restricted the discussion to the Macedonian Phalanx, with a mere acknowledgement to it's Greek ancestry. Clearly you are not familiar with the manuals.
It is clear, to me at least, that the "Macedonian phalanx" was a different critter from the city state hoplite muster. You, though, insist on equating the two. Worse, you aduce Xenophon's fiction of the "Cyropaedia" - Asians as Greeks...well at least the "good" Asians.
Not equating - one all too obviously evolved from the other.
The bottom line here is that we have a clear description of the effect of a Macedonian phalanx "when sixteen deep" that you insist on being rendered as eight.
Because that's what the evidence points to....on the one occasion we are actually told the depth that Alexander's phalanx actually fought in, it is eight deep.
I fail to to see it still. Your demands - from others - for a wholistic "hypothesis" explaining all ancient sources, which are most unforthcoming, is no ipso-facto substantiation of your own flawed hypothesis based on stretched, scant evidence.
You are welcome to your own "flawed hypothesis based on stretched, scant evidence", if you have one ! So far you haven't put one forward. Mine at least has the merit of fitting all the known facts, and I've yet to see a better one !
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - Paullus Scipio - 04-16-2009
Quote:In the tactical system of the manuals, the extra officers provided leaders if the phalanx closed up to the closest order (1 cubit per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16) or needed to produce a longer line than usual (2 cubits per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16). Aelian states (Aelian 4.3) that the depths he gives can be doubled or halved as the situation demands. This makes sense if the normal depths are 2 files (marching order), 1 file (fighting order), and 1/2 file (synaspimos). He mentions half-file leaders, but only mentions quarter-files in passing as part of an alternative system of terms which he doesn't use.I can't speak for swiss columns, other than to say they were likely based on reading "16 deep" as some moderns do including here, as being in close order - but an in-depth study suggets otherwise, as I have expounded ,here.
I think the Swiss show that pike formations deeper than 8 are perfectly practical, despite doubts by some scholars. Precise information on the depth of Swiss formations is hard to find, but their columns were much more than 8 deep.
Paullus Scipio:37g15r7f Wrote:Furthermore, the manuals tell us that there were 'Half-file leaders'/hemilochites, and 'Quarter-file leaders'/enomotarchs. What purpose would these serve if whole files of 16 were the order in which they fought, and they never closed any further ?In the tactical system of the manuals, the extra officers provided leaders if the phalanx closed up to the closest order (1 cubit per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16) or needed to produce a longer line than usual (2 cubits per file, half the normal depth of 8, 12, or 16). Aelian states (Aelian 4.3) that the depths he gives can be doubled or halved as the situation demands. This makes sense if the normal depths are 2 files (marching order), 1 file (fighting order), and 1/2 file (synaspimos). He mentions half-file leaders, but only mentions quarter-files in passing as part of an alternative system of terms which he doesn't use.
Except that 'quarter-files' go back to the earlier Hoplite system, if Xenophon is anything to go by..... and judging by the Anabasis, which describes a Phalanx made up from mercenaries from all over greece, this system was pretty universal. If it was not done, why is it described? Significantly there is no drill for getting down to 2 deep in Xenophon, supporting what he says, namely 4 deep was the 'battle' formation for Hoplites (in close order).....I think the Swiss show that pike formations deeper than 8 are perfectly practical, despite doubts by some scholars. Precise information on the depth of Swiss formations is hard to find, but their columns were much more than 8 deep.
Quote:No time for a full exposition but if the rear eleven ranks are spectators what are the rear twenty ranks of Thebans, on your reckoning, doing?
The Thebans are experimenting with the idea of 'column' versus 'line' - the theory behind this tactical approach being very different from forming an 'optimum' line.....
The manuals are all well and good but they are written with a view to the 'perfect' phalanx by philospers not soldiers - there are no 'syntagmai' in Polybios but 'speirai' nor do I recall any epigraphic evidence for most of the officers mentioned; though there is little enough for the ones in the 'historical' sources!
This argument is an old one, but Arrian at least was a practical soldier, and like Xenophon, a real general, and if the 'real' Phalanxes did not live up to the theoretical ones in part, the same is true of modern 'military theory and Practice'
There are other reasons for having officers at more frequent intervals in the file; the one mentioned by Xenophon being the speedy transmission of orders.
A weak argument.Even amidst the cacophony of battle, a shouted order should be heard more than 4 yards away, and if this was the reason for 'officers' surely only one was needed every 4 yards laterally too? Why have 4 for each file?
Polybios' closing criticism of Kallisthenes is also made a nonsense by your system, to whit he says he should have described the correct evolutions as from a double or even quadruple phalanx but if the battle line is eight deep then this is just what has been described! Some cheer for your view may be had, though in that, although he is thinking of a depth of sixteen surely he is also thinking of looser spaced men filling the formation from the rear; though I wonder if they don't march behind the file space they will fill a la Roman Republican quincunx. Alexander approached Granicus in a double phalanx and this may well be further indication of drill approaching your idea,though I would think the phalanx formed properly much sooner than you suggest. Despite Polybios' protests at Issos it marched 30 stades (according to Curtius) formed up (en machen in Arrian forgotten the Latin, doh!). Polybios amongst his many gaffs when regaling Kallisthenes accepts with no demur his description of the terrain (I don't think Polybios ever went to Syria in his travels) the difficulties of which were exagerated for propaganda purposes; for despite Polybios' averring that no phalanx could make the march it is quite clear that Alexander's did.
Agreed! Polybius does indeed err in his criticism of Callisthenes, but in doing so reveals much about how he understood Phalanx drill.
Sorry guys, but due to 'mobbing', I simply don't have time to deal in detail with each individual criticism, though I would like to! I shall have to withdraw from this debate, but I do urge each of you to look at the matter of each battle with this idea in mind. If a 'fatal flaw' turns up, I would be glad to know of it, but thus far, having intensely studied the subject, I believe my hypothesis holds true.......
Re: The Makedonian phalanx -- why such depth? - PMBardunias - 04-16-2009
Quote:Yes, varying the depth in this way is essentially a very simple system, which is almost universal. (Xenophon Cyropaedia II.3.21 for anyone who wants to look at it.) I have sent you this with explanation and diagrams, ....the meaning is so obvious... !
Obvious, yes, and I have defended your description of it for I believe it most likely correct. But the beauty of the system is that you need not double down all the way. This gives great flexibility. As you allude to above, based on the terminology for divisions the original formation must have been Lochos of 100, made up of 2 Pentekostyes of 50 that formed in 5 lines of ten- perhps doubling down to 10 of 5. Starting from a Lochos of 96 men, which is the number we get from Xenophon's dinner drill referenced above, we can form any number of ranks seen on a Greek battlefield. To do this you simply either interupt the doubling down process- stop at 8 instead of 4 for example. Alternately you divide by thirds and not halfs, as we know Spartans did to form 3's. An enomotia of 24, half of a Pentekontyes, can half to 12 ranks or third to 8 ranks. It can then double further, but the key is that it need not. Opened or close order is in no way fixed for each file length. For example a Pentekostyes of 48 can divide by 3 to give files of 16. These files of 16 can simply march up in close order if the officers wish.
It is the manner of division and not the unit size alone that governs the ending depth. To use the two examples from Xenophon, we see enomotia of 24 divide down through 12 to 6. While in Cilicia his real mercs divide down to 4. I see no reason to assume a different enomotia size for these men when simply dividing the enomotia of 24 into thirds give the depth of 4 by way of 8.
I attached an image of all of the different ways that Xenophon's basic drill can produce the known divisions of file depth. Including the early, perhaps ancestral split of 48 down to 8. You also see the 24 depth of the Thebans at Delium can be simply undivided enomotia in close order, while the famous 50 of Leuktra may just be undivided pentekostyes.
What we don't know is that any of this was done a century or two earlier. It might have been, but clan groups might just have formed behind a rank of leaders who line up alongside fellow clans.
Quote:there are a number of references to 'normal/open' and 'close' order in Xenophon - some of which I have referred to you in private correspondence long ago! e.g. against a Spartan attack along a road in column (Xen: VII.4.22" But the Arcadians stood firm.They formed up in close order and stood quietly...He (Spartan Archidamus) led his men up in double file, just as they were on the march, and so as the troops came to close quarters, the troops of Archidamus, marching, as they were along a road, were in column, and the Arcadians were in close order, shield to shield....."
The Spartans were in column marching in both examples- they had not deployed. If you assert that opened order was for marching along roads and troops deployed into close order when forming the battle-line, then we are in agreement.
Quote:At Mantinea (Thuc V.66 ff), we are told that the armies were already on the move in the final advance to contact …I would agree all units were most likely in close order. What is your point?
One of your main assertions for the existence of an opened order stage is that they had to advance in opened order due to the difficulty you perceive in moving in close order. Here at Mantinea they are obviously advancing the whole way in close order. There is no way that the phalanxes veered perhaps as much as hundreds of meters to the right in the course of a final 100 meter advance. From the description there is no reason to expect that they formed up in opened order, stood like that for a while, then doubled into close order. They formed directly from column into close order files and did not double down further. Then they simply advanced. Occam is surely on my side now.