Spartan hype?

[Paullus Scipio]

.....(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.

Oh, alright...you got me !

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree for a variety of reasons.

Of course you don't !......and we can debate until doomsday without reaching consensus........ ( .

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.

No disagreement there. Thet spent most (90%?) of their time moving around in a file 12 deep - on the road, forming up for battle, advancing, letting skirmishers through forward and later to the rear....etc .

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)

Silly argument! "Half men" indeed! :lol:

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.

Nonsense, I could teach recruits to do this type of manouevre by ranks i.e. open order to close order and back in half an hour( and have done! ), let alone by files/half-files, which is much easier. Xenophon describes how it was practised by the files going to their mess etc.The Ten Thousand, hoplites from all over Greece, and not Spartans don't seem to have had any trouble moving from open to close order and vice versa.
Any Hoplites could do this in a heartbeat. wink:

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.

Maybe, but you should quote sources for such an assertion - and I don't mean Thucydides assertion about the 'tendency' to drift right, which is not the same thing as 'bunching'. Can you give examples from battle accounts ? And if so, are they exceptional?

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.

Quite right ! Once the half-files moved up into close order 'shield to shield', no manouevre other than advance was possible - one of the main reasons to do this, along with creating a solid fighting 'wall'.......so your psiloi had better have been recalled before you closed up !!

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.

Why ? He had obviously studied the subject and had access to more and better sources than you and I. His and the other 'drill manuals' are really all we have to go on, so why disregard them in favour of modern, totally theoretical ideas ??.

Se the thread on Testudo in the roman section for a paper that discusses Arrian.

Yes read it , and ??....
The Cyropaedia is another suspect source if only because he is clearly drawing on traditions beyond simple Greek tactics.

You want to hose down another primary source ??? :roll: :roll:
And if you read it carefully, he is describing hoplite warfare, almost pure and simple, and in particular addressing the Thebans and their tactics, as well as what the Spartans should do in his fictional battle of "Thymbrara". This has long been accepted by authorities on the subject see e.g. J.K. Anderson " Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon" 1970 .

The line you quoted about depth would make fools of The Thebans and their deep phalanx.

Which is what Xenophon was trying to do...He and the Spartans knew that despite Leuctra, the Theban column was a bad tactical idea, easily countered as Xenophon describes....

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.

No, othismos is a separate subject, dealing with what may have happened when two lines in close order physically clashed. The idea that a line hundreds of metres long could exert a concerted shove is plain nonsense in my view - see the thread 'Late Roman formations' for a lengthy debate on this. That 'shoving' by groups here and there took place is possible, even likely, see e.g. footage of riots, but on a co-ordinated lengthy front, never !! - read your critique with interest,BTW..

If I were to accept your premise, that Hoplite armies ( with the possible exception of the Spartans) were incapable of doing anything other than forming up/advancing in close order, then how do you explain troops opening up to allow psiloi through, or cavalry etc ?
How do you explain 'counter-marching' ?
'Doubling' (a.k.a halving) the file ?
Each lochagoi leading his file 'two by two'? - Cyropaedia
The references to files of 'tens and fives', and 'twelves and sixes' ? - ibid
The Ten Thousand's "Battle formation" i.e. close order as four deep?.....
I could pose many more similar questions..... D lol: