04-12-2010, 11:18 AM
I believe that synaspismos would not seem a probable formation for the mixed phalanx. If marching in open order and then closing up, I still believe that it would be possible in both ways (contraction and interjunction), according to circumstances. But, as all non-phallangite troops of this and later eras, synaspismos would not, in my opinion, be a choice.
Yet, I do not agree with your interpretation of Polybius' account of the march at Issos (irrelevant to the mixed phalanx of course, yet a very interesting matter for sick people like us...(it is always fun to watch the faces of people at pubs and restaurants watching us having a real serious discussion about the average weight of cattle during the Napoleonic campaigns...))
So, as you wrote Polybius writes :
full text (from Lacus Curtius):
Polybius takes for granted (as do we), that the initial march of Alexander's army was made in open order (6 feet per person). He says "at first thirty two deep". Now, here lies the whole issue. Polybius does not know what densities Alexander used, so he also assumes that he marched in open order till he closed up to 8 deep. Yet, he disregards his own account (about the 32 men depth) and makes the calculation regarding the 16 men deep as open order (why not close order? If Alexander intended to use synaspismos, then his phalanx should have marched 16 deep in close order if he wanted to retain his frontage. Why shouldn't he? Polybius doesn't say how close the Greeks were to the Persians when the phalanx formed 16 men deep, I suppose Callisthenes didn't say. Maybe they were less than a mile apart, so close order could have been ordered. The forty stades distance is also a mystery, since this "After this" of Polybius does not mean, in my opinion, "after the phalanx closed up to 8 deep", but "In the next paragraph", Callisthenes already claimed that at least the last closing of the files happened at a short distance from the enemy "eggizein"). The fact that Callisthenes does not give the densities is evident, since Polybius admits to not know whether the 8 man deep phalanx was arrayed in synaspismos or in regular compact order. Even regarding the 16 man deep phalanx, he assumes they were in marching (open) order. He admits that Callisthenes does not say when he writes : "the densities which must be kept at march / "en tois poreutikois diastimasin (correctly translated : "in marching distances")". And so, assuming that at 16 deep the phalanx still marches in open order, when it reduces to 8 men he gives both calculations not being able to say which one was adopted and how. He also makes further mistakes, since he seems to make the calculation of the 16 man deep phalanx according to the space needed for open order (6 feet per man), but then goes on to reduce that by half, when seemingly talking about synaspismos (this usual description of the poet's words clearly suggest that, plus he says "synispyse" in the Greek text) instead of 3/4! So, he seems to mix up the space necessary for close order with that necessary for synaspismos! We know that close order is 3 feet per man and synaspismos 1,5 feet... So, something IS wrong with his caclulations for a phalanx which needs 40 stades in open order to deploy (Polybius' assumption) needs 20 stades in close order and just 10 stades in synaspismos...
As far as the process of closing up is described, this is not mentioned by Polybius. He says "Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; "As soon as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression, "laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen." This "and even had they.." shows an alternative. It does not mean that this density would be accomplished by moving to the side or by interjecting files. He says that the phalanx either took up 40 or 20 stades, not that it first took up 40 and then 20 stades... This very fact shows that even according to Polybius it is possible to keep frontage while increasing density.
As to the real world vs manuals debate, I would agree with you had we more examples. One or two do not suffice to be able to disregard the manuals as unrealistic. Anyways... I really cannot say right now if there are more examples as to the exact issue, but I will research the matter and I will come back to it at a later date. I just do not see the difficulty in interjecting lines. It is quick and easy. Why shouldn't it be used, since they certainly had thought of it?
Looking forward to your comments!
Yet, I do not agree with your interpretation of Polybius' account of the march at Issos (irrelevant to the mixed phalanx of course, yet a very interesting matter for sick people like us...(it is always fun to watch the faces of people at pubs and restaurants watching us having a real serious discussion about the average weight of cattle during the Napoleonic campaigns...))
So, as you wrote Polybius writes :
Quote:He gave general orders to form up into a phalanx, at first thirty-two deep; then sixteen; and lastly, when they were nearing the enemy, eight deep.” A stade, allowing for the distances which must be kept on a march, and reckoning the depth at sixteen, admits of one thousand six hundred men, each man covering six feet. It is plain, therefore, that ten stades will admit of only sixteen thousand men, and twenty twice that number. Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; "As soon as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression, "laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen.
full text (from Lacus Curtius):
Quote:Immediately on issuing into the open country he re-formed his order, passing to all the word of command to form into phalanx, making it at first thirty-two deep, changing this subsequently to sixteen deep, and finally as he approach the enemy to eight deep. 7 These statements are even more absurd than his former ones. For with the proper intervals for marching order a stade, when the men are sixteen deep, will hold sixteen hundred, each man being at a distance of six feet from the next. 8 It is evident, then, that ten stades will hold sixteen thousand men and twenty stades twice as many. 9 From all this it is quite plain that when Alexander made his army sixteen deep the line necessarily extended for twenty stades, and this left all the cavalry and ten thousand of the infantry over.
20 After this he says that Alexander led on his army in an extended line, being then at a distance of about forty stades from the enemy. 2 It is difficult to conceive anything more absurd than this. Where, especially in Cilicia, could one find an extent of ground where a phalanx with its long spears could advance for forty stades in a line twenty stades long? 3 The obstacles indeed to such a formation and such a movement are so many that it would be difficult to enumerate them all, a single one mentioned by Callisthenes himself being sufficient to convince us of its impossibility. 4 For he tells us that the torrents descending the mountains have formed so many clefts in the plain that most of the Persians in their flight perished in such fissures. 5 But, it may be said, Alexander wished to be prepared for the appearance of the enemy. 6 And what can be less prepared than a phalanx advancing in line but broken and disunited? How much easier indeed it would have been to develop from proper marching-order into order of battle than to straighten out and prepare for action on thickly wooded and fissured ground a broken line with numerous gaps in it 7 It would, therefore, have been considerably better to form a proper double or quadruple phalanx, for which it was not impossible to find marching room and which it would have been quite easy to get into order of battle expeditiously enough, as he was enabled through his scouts to receive in good time warning of the approach of the enemy. 8 But, other things apart, Alexander did not even, according to Callisthenes, send his cavalry on in front when advancing in line over flat ground, but apparently placed them alongside the infantry.
21 But here is the greatest of all his mistakes. He tells us that Alexander, on approaching the enemy, made his line eight deep. 2 It is evident then that now the total length of the line must have been forty stades. 3 And even if they closed up so that, as described by Homer, they actually jostled each other, still the front must have extended over twenty stades. 4 But he tells us that there was only a space of less than fourteen stades, and as half of the cavalry were on the left near the sea and half on the right, the room available for the infantry is still further reduced. Add to this that the whole line must have kept at a considerable distance from the mountains so as not to be exposed to attack by those of the enemy who held the foot-hills. 6 We know that he did as a fact draw up part of his force in a crescent formation to oppose this latter.
Polybius takes for granted (as do we), that the initial march of Alexander's army was made in open order (6 feet per person). He says "at first thirty two deep". Now, here lies the whole issue. Polybius does not know what densities Alexander used, so he also assumes that he marched in open order till he closed up to 8 deep. Yet, he disregards his own account (about the 32 men depth) and makes the calculation regarding the 16 men deep as open order (why not close order? If Alexander intended to use synaspismos, then his phalanx should have marched 16 deep in close order if he wanted to retain his frontage. Why shouldn't he? Polybius doesn't say how close the Greeks were to the Persians when the phalanx formed 16 men deep, I suppose Callisthenes didn't say. Maybe they were less than a mile apart, so close order could have been ordered. The forty stades distance is also a mystery, since this "After this" of Polybius does not mean, in my opinion, "after the phalanx closed up to 8 deep", but "In the next paragraph", Callisthenes already claimed that at least the last closing of the files happened at a short distance from the enemy "eggizein"). The fact that Callisthenes does not give the densities is evident, since Polybius admits to not know whether the 8 man deep phalanx was arrayed in synaspismos or in regular compact order. Even regarding the 16 man deep phalanx, he assumes they were in marching (open) order. He admits that Callisthenes does not say when he writes : "the densities which must be kept at march / "en tois poreutikois diastimasin (correctly translated : "in marching distances")". And so, assuming that at 16 deep the phalanx still marches in open order, when it reduces to 8 men he gives both calculations not being able to say which one was adopted and how. He also makes further mistakes, since he seems to make the calculation of the 16 man deep phalanx according to the space needed for open order (6 feet per man), but then goes on to reduce that by half, when seemingly talking about synaspismos (this usual description of the poet's words clearly suggest that, plus he says "synispyse" in the Greek text) instead of 3/4! So, he seems to mix up the space necessary for close order with that necessary for synaspismos! We know that close order is 3 feet per man and synaspismos 1,5 feet... So, something IS wrong with his caclulations for a phalanx which needs 40 stades in open order to deploy (Polybius' assumption) needs 20 stades in close order and just 10 stades in synaspismos...
As far as the process of closing up is described, this is not mentioned by Polybius. He says "Hence, when Alexander caused his men to form sixteen deep, he would have wanted a width of ground of twenty stades; "As soon as Alexander," he says, "was within distance of the enemy he caused his men to take up order eight deep," which would have necessitated ground forty stades wide for the length of the line; and even had they, to use the poet's expression, "laid shield to shield and on each other leaned," still ground twenty stades wide would have been wanted, while he himself says that it was less than fourteen." This "and even had they.." shows an alternative. It does not mean that this density would be accomplished by moving to the side or by interjecting files. He says that the phalanx either took up 40 or 20 stades, not that it first took up 40 and then 20 stades... This very fact shows that even according to Polybius it is possible to keep frontage while increasing density.
As to the real world vs manuals debate, I would agree with you had we more examples. One or two do not suffice to be able to disregard the manuals as unrealistic. Anyways... I really cannot say right now if there are more examples as to the exact issue, but I will research the matter and I will come back to it at a later date. I just do not see the difficulty in interjecting lines. It is quick and easy. Why shouldn't it be used, since they certainly had thought of it?
Looking forward to your comments!
