An argument for the pace and not the cubit

[Macedon]

My mistake, please take it up with these people:
Bill Thayer's Website

Translations are fickle things. As I do not read ancient Greek, I am must rely on other's to do the translating for me. As I do not have access to a scholarly library, I primarily rely on online sources. So options are limited. But, where can I find other examples of translations of the same source that match your version? Can you provide other comparative examples that support the translation you provided?

Another example of the above text citing terrain

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do other than trying to double check whatever you think you really need with the use of multiple translations and even then you cannot easily profess certainty. Most translations are highly stylized and much of what they write cannot be taken at word value. Besides that, most translators have no experience with military terminology. I cannot help you with finding other translations on the web, but I am sure there are aplenty. This is a very usual problem with researchers (even historians) who do not know ancient Greek. What I am saying is that whenever you want to really base a theory on a certain interpretation, you should check and double check with people you trust. You will see that I often post such queries in this forum myself, when I am not sure about the meaning of certain texts I deem important.

Additionally, how can you write this:
"When he realized that the left (of the Macedonians) was broken among the hills..."

and then write:
It nothing to do with the terrain itself.

It seems contradictory. Did terrain play a factor in the Macedonian left being repulsed by the Romans at Cynoscephalae?

Because it is not contradictory. The meaning of this passage, more clear in Greek than in English, is that the left Macedonian wing was still broken (the real word being "divided") because the columns were still arriving and forming. So this is an example of how the word "broken" which both I and the translation used can mislead you into thinking that it was "because of the hills" that this was happening. However, it is not. It is just that the phalanx has not yet unified and its parts are on the hills. Had it been on a plain, it would be "broken in the plains". The main difference in the translations you used and mine is that I strongly support that the text nowhere says that the left wing was formed but was unable to retain cohesion because of the terrain. It is, to me, clear that the Macedonians did not have time enough to form in the first place.

So, the terrain was not a factor that played a role in the phalanx vs phalanx battle. It DID play a role because it probably made it a less quick job to form the phalanx, since less columns could climb up the hills from the camp and so the left wing was not in position as quickly as Philip would have wanted. However, this is an overall tactical disadvantage and not one that has to do with the specific issue at hand.

If Jass (Lyceum) reads that, he can give us his own opinion as to what the text says.