Spartan hype?

[PMBardunias]

.....(sigh! ) I shouldn't have mentioned this, because it will likely start yet another debate.

I can hear the violins :wink: I can tell a fellow lover of tactical discussion when I see one.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree for a variety of reasons. First off, I don't believe that the most important designation that the Greeks had for their formation, depth of ranks, did not refer to the strength they engaged in. When Isocrates speaks of the Spartans forming in one rank for battle, your scheme would have them deployed in half-men. (Everyone knows that only Athenians were half-men) A corrolary of this is that I do not believe hoplites, other than perhaps Spartans, could pull off a deployment like you describe in the face of the enemy.

Reguardless of the depth they formed in prior to battle, as they advanced, sometimes rapidly and over a few hundred meters, they invariably bunched together. The fact that when the shield is raised in front your body is a bit twisted right and the urge to get behind the overhang of the shield to your right combine to cause packing and the right-drift described by Thukydides. By the time the two lines engaged there would be no room for men to filter inbetween the files.

I am a bit leery of Arrian and his description of phalanx tactics. He was far removed and well versed in another tactical doctrine which must have clouded his interpretation. Se the thread on Testudo in the roman section for a paper that discusses Arrian.

The Cyropaedia is another suspect source if only because he is clearly drawing on traditions beyond simple Greek tactics. The line you quoted about depth would make fools of The Thebans and their deep phalanx.

The heart of this difference in opinion obviously devolves to our interpretation of Othismos- which is another thread I recently commented on, linking to a critique I made of Goldsworthy's paper.