Phalanx questions

[Paralus]

While transsfering my experience to "Koryvantes" we found out that you cannot change frontage while enngaded. Its easier to lift the sarissa vertically in order to change direction.

I would agree. I cannot see any easy method for a phalanx engaged with the enemy to either change about or to change its frontage (in density); the more so when engaged with another of its kind. File "insertion" might be accomplished when fighting enemies outreached (Romans or Greek hoplites) but I wonder just how easy that would be amidst a pushing, driving, sarisa shoving block of phalangites. Easy on a training ground but perhaps not so amid those phalangites furiously poking and shoving to stay alive.

Turning about could, on any reasonable assessment, only be accomplished by disengaging so as phalangites might manufacture the space (and order) to raise sarisae before "facing to shield" or "to spear" (or "counter-marching"). Polybius notes this at Cynoschephalae (18.26.4) in saying that "it is impossible for the phalanx to turn right about face" and the context (describing the battle) is a phalanx engaged. He enlarges upon this in his (in)famous dissertation which follows. Here (18.29 - 30.4; esp 30.4) he describes how the front ranks are fenced in by rear lowered sarisae and the the rear closes up in the "charge". Thus the phalanx's energies are focused on the single direction: forward. Whilst not strictly impossible, the rear ranks (sarisae raised) turning about is difficult to imagine. In the din and heat of battle such a change might likely shatter a phalanx - especially one such as the victorious Macedonian right at Cynoscephalae where the phalanx is actively advancing and pushing back the Romans when attacked in the rear.

Where we have a description of a phalanx altering order and facing, it is unengaged or disengaging. Off the top off my head that would include Gabiene where Eumenes' victorious phalanx disengaged from a routed opposition and formed a square; Magnesia (as George mentioned) where it had not engaged; Hydaspes where Alexander orders the phalanx (disengaged as the narrative makes plain 5.17.6-7 esp. 7) to close up and advance.

Sellasia is another matter. George and I well know this and it has been discussed extensively on another thread. Suffice to say I believe the double phalanx closed up from the rear in one last thrust. Others see it a the rear part of the double phalanx inserting into the forward part to "close up" into synaspismos and advance uphill against the Lacedaemonian phalanx.

In all battles of good infantry vs pike blocks the issue was decided in the flanks.
In Cynos Cefalae the Aetolians flanked the Macedoninas with their light troops and cavalry.

Same thing in Pydna

The Aetolian cavalry helped to drive the Macedonian light troops back up the hill at Cynoscephelae. The victory came on the Macedonian left where the "greater part" of the phalanx was still deploying as Philip's right charged. That part of the right of the Macedonian phalanx that was not quite ready followed after the troops Philip ordered to "double their depth and close up to the right" and lagged behind. The left of the Macedonian phalanx was still cresting the hill in column and was, along with the 'laggards' of the right, put to flight. It is then that a Roman tribune takes "not more" than twenty maniples around and behind Philip's successful right to seal victory.